Annual Report
2001-2002
University of Oregon Faculty Advisory Council
Council members: John Baldwin (PPPM); Shaul Cohen (Geography); Larry Dann, Chair (Lundquist College of Business); Lorraine Davis (Senior Vice Provost); James Earl (English); Dave Frohnmayer (President); Peter Gilkey (Mathematics); Ed Kame’enui (College of Education); Duncan McDonald (Journalism); James Mohr (History); John Moseley (Provost); Martha Pitts (Admissions); Rachele Raia (Administrative Director, CAS); Nathan Tublitz (Biology)
In 2001-2002, the FAC met on a weekly basis to provide the President, Provost and Senior Vice Provost with faculty opinion and council on the wide range of university affairs. A summary of the issues discussed by the FAC appears below.
1. Strategic directions for the University of Oregon. Beginning with the first meeting on September 24, 2001 and continuing at several subsequent meetings through May 2002, the FAC discussed and helped frame the content of a document entitled Making a Difference: Strategic Directions for the University of Oregon. This document will help serve as a planning document internally as well as a basis for communication with various external constituencies.
2. The FAC discussed the campus environment following the tragedies of September 11, 2001. Discussions involved ways to help calm the campus community, and what should be the official posture of the university regarding voluntarily coordinated campus discussions by faculty and students in response to the terrorist attacks. The FAC also reviewed, in the wake of the anthrax scare, university mail handling and delivery methods.
3. Campus diversity. The FAC met in July 2001 and again in October 2001 with Dr. Elson Floyd, an external diversity consultant hired by the Provost to evaluate the state of campus diversity and to recommend effective ways to organize campus diversity initiatives. The FAC provided Dr. Floyd information on faculty perspectives regarding campus diversity and UO administrative efforts in that regard. The FAC also discussed and provided faculty perspective on the report received from Dr. Floyd in February 2002. Diversity issues also entered discussions of student enrollment activities and faculty recruiting and retention efforts.
4. The FAC discussed issues related to PEBB, especially with respect to health insurance coverage. Changes in the coverage for 2002 were of concern to many, and potential alternative options that might be available in future years were explored briefly.
5. The FAC advised President Frohnmayer and Provost Moseley on budgetary issues facing the Oregon University System and the University of Oregon. Discussions focused on budget implications as the shortfall in state revenues progressively worsened over the academic year.
6. The FAC was actively involved in early efforts regarding the process for searching for a new OUS Chancellor. Members of the FAC spoke with and/or wrote letters to the State Board urging faculty and student involvement in the search process, recommended desired candidate criteria, and met with State Higher Education Board members to discuss these issues. FAC members also participated in conference meetings with the finalists for the position.
7. The FAC discussed issues of the University of Oregon public image, the UO logo and UO graphic identification, and broader issues regarding the meaning of “public” for public institutions today.
8. The FAC discussed the report and recommendations from the Enrollment Management Council regarding campus growth and feasible UO size in the short term (1-2 years) and intermediate term (5-7 years). These discussions included issues regarding student diversity, UO housing availability and suitability, and transportation to campus and on campus.
9. The FAC discussed the University of Oregon’s academic aspirations, current status as an AAU member university, and the relation of these topics to the University’s strategic directions document.
10. The FAC discussed differentiation of OUS institutions with respect to mission, academic objectives and budgetary circumstances. Recognizing the differences faced by the different institutions, and flowing from the Strategic Directions discussions, the FAC discussed strategies for achieving greater autonomy for the UO to address our unique issues and market forces.
11. The FAC reviewed the overall campus intellectual climate and attractiveness of the UO for faculty, and examined recent years’ evidence on faculty retention.
12. Intercollegiate athletic issues, including funding and prominence relative to academic endeavors, both at the UO and nationwide were a topic of occasional FAC discussion.
13. The FAC discussed a revised tuition plan for UO, including altering the credit hour plateau for full time students, and offering differential student credit hour costs for classes offered at off-peak hours.
14. The FAC received a report and oral presentation from the chair of the Senate Non-Tenure Track Instructional Faculty Committee, and encouraged authorization of a survey to gather information regarding issues related to this category of UO employees.
15. The FAC initiated, but because of limited time did not pursue in depth, a discussion of the delineation between faculty and administrative responsibilities for decision-making at the university. This is an important unfinished topic for review that the 2002-2003 FAC might wish to pursue further. An especially important aspect of this discussion relates to maintaining the tenor of constructive collaboration between faculty and administration that is necessary for shared governance at the UO to work effectively.
The FAC worked constructively with, but independently from, the Senate leadership this year. Two institutional arrangements facilitated this working relationship. One is the fact that the Senate President or designee is a member of the FAC. A second arrangement consists of bi-weekly meetings between President Frohnmayer and the Senate President, Senate Vice-President and FAC Chair that kept these leaders mutually informed about current or upcoming agenda items. A constructive working and personal relationship between the Senate President and the FAC Chair also contributed.
As outgoing FAC Chair, I am taking the liberty to offer my personal opinion on this relation between the Senate and the FAC. This year’s FAC has already heard my views on this matter. I think the FAC serves the university and the President most effectively by providing faculty opinion and counsel from a perspective that is independent of the University Senate. The FAC is the institutional faculty voice by which the President and other Administration officials receive direct communication from faculty that is not filtered through the legislative deliberations of the Senate. This alternative communication channel is an important element of the governance structure of the university, and I believe its effectiveness is directly related to its independence.
I have greatly enjoyed working with the members of the 2001-2002 Faculty Advisory Council, and I thank them for their thoughtfulness, their diligence and their commitment to furthering the interests of the University of Oregon.
Respectfully submitted,
Larry Y. Dann, Chair
2001-2002 Faculty Advisory Council