Minutes of the Organizational Meeting of the University Senate May 26, 2004

Present:C. Cherry, A. Emami, L. Feldman, L. Freinkel, S. `Gary, P. Gilkey, L. Huaxin, J. Jablonski, P. Keyes, S. Maier, W. A. Marcus, J. McCole, A. McLucas, C. McNelly, K. McPherson, L. Moses, L. Nelson, L. Robare, G. Sayre, E. Scott, K. Sheehan, E. Singer

Excused: E. Chan, D. Eisert, G. Epps, S. Haynes, C. Lachman, L. Lindstrom, A. Mathas, M. Pangburn, M. Raymer, D. Sinha, P. Swangard,

Absent: S. Eyster, J. Hurwit, K. Kennedy, D. Pope, G. Psaki, P. Scher, S. Simmons, J. Wagenknecht, L. Wellman


Senate President Lowell Bowditch called the organizational meeting for the 2004-05 senate to order at 3:10 p.m. in 110 Law.


Approval of the minutes of the May 12, 2004 regular senate meeting was deferred to the first fall term senate meeting, October 13, 2004 (see http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~uosenate/dirsen034/12May04minutes.html).


President Bowditch introduced the newly elected senators for the 2004-05 academic year: for Natural Sciences Huaxin Lin, Mathematics, and Louis Moses, Psychology; for Social Sciences:John McCole, History; Leonard Feldman, Political Science; Lise Nelson, Geography; and Ellen Scott, Sociology; for Humanities Lisa Freinkel, English; Alexander Mathas, Germanic Languages; for Architecture and Allied Arts Elizabeth Chan, Landscape Architecture, and Sherwin Simons, Art History; for Education Debra Eisert, CHD; for Journalism and Communication Scott Maier, News Editorial; for Law Susan Gary; for Library System John Jablonski, Science Library; for Lundquist College of Business Mike Pangburn, Decision Sciences; Jeanne Wagenknecht, Finance; and Ali Emami, Finance; for School of Music Christian Cherry, Dance; for Officers of Administration Paul Swangard, LCB Warsaw Center; and for Classified Staff Participants (non-voting) Ed Singer, Registrar Office, and Carla McNelly, Multicultural Affairs.


The secretary discussed general operating procedures for the senate, noting the required sign-in sheet for attendance records and the need to notify her if meetings are missed. She provided a quick visual tour of the senateís web page, citing it as the on-line repository of current and archival senate-related materials such as agendas, motions, minutes, committee information, correspondence, and links to other governance matters and entities.


Senate President Bowditch began her remarks by thanking the senate as a whole, and a number of people who were especially instrumental in contributing to a success year: members of the senate executive committee, Vice President W. Andrew Marcus, FAC chairman Nathan Tublitz, IFS President (and senate webmaster) Peter Gilkey, Secretary Gwen Steigelman, Parliamentarian Paul Simonds, and staff members Jennifer Burton and Beth Sprague, who assisted with the minutes.

President Bowditch spoke of the important role that wide consultation, open discussions and debate, critical thinking, and inclusiveness played in confronting issues before the senate during the year.As examples of economic and ideological conditions that course deeply through universities these days, she referred to two issues discussed on the UO campus: the role of intercollegiate athletics on campus, with its dependence on private donations, and, student records privacy policy, specifically, infringement of civil liberties via subpoenas of records.The president expressed satisfaction with the collaborative efforts of students, administrators, staff, and faculty to sort through difference opinions to craft reasoned responses and policies.

President Bowditch commented on the importance of faculty and other university community members staying alert to coming challenges that affect their academic efforts, such as the OUS movement to take a ìmore, better, fasterî approach to higher education.She noted that faculty should rightly be wary of initiatives that employ the lexicon of the business world, treating education exclusively as a market product and students as potentially fickle consumers.Further, she opined that faculty should and must become familiar with these approaches to higher education and their implications, and demand to be the deliberative voice in any process that may seek to change the fundamental nature of how higher education is conducted.

Lastly, alluding to her duel role as senate president and as a new, first time mother, President Bowditch observed that dealing with senate issues is not unlike tending to a newborn: just as one thinks one has successfully calmed all immediate demands, put issues to sleep, and can tiptoe quietly out of the room, it cries out for attention to be picked up again.She concluded her remarks assuring everyone that incoming Senate President W. Andrew Marcus will do a superb job.

Senior Vice President and Provost John Moseley thanked President Bowditch for her leadership the past year on behalf of the university and President Frohnmayer, who was out of town.The provost reaffirmed that the University Senate is a critical part of the governance and of the administration at the University of Oregon.Speaking to members of the senate in general, he noted that the university is in their debt for the time that they spend in university governance, particularly those members who take on leadership rolls of officers.Provost Moseley commented that although sometimes members of the senate and administration find themselves at odds on various issues, that is a part of academic discourse and it is a part of how the university continues to grow and improve ? it is how we try to understand issues in depth, which often are not simple issues.The provost concluded by saying that he personally appreciated the job that President Bowditch has done in directing this senate the past year.


Election of new Committee on Committees members.Senate Nominating Committee Chairman Gordon Sayre, English, presented the slate of recommended new members of the senateís Committee on Committees as follows: Julie Hessler, Philip Serve, Jeanne Wagenknecht, Michael Helman, Jean Lux, Gordon Sayre.Senate members voted unanimously to approve the new committee members. 

Election of senate vice president for 2004-2005.Nominating Committee Chairman Sayre indicated that the committee nominated Senator Peter Keyes, architecture, to serve as senate vice president for the coming academic year.Asking if there were any others nominations from the floor, and hearing none, President Bowditch pronounced Senator Keyes elected by acclamation. 

Confirmation and remarks from incoming Senate President W. Andrew Marcus.President Bowditch introduced the new Senate President, W. Andrew Marcus, geography, and turned over the traditional mantles of power: a gavel and a copy of Robertís Rules of Order. President Marcus accepted the gavel and rules, and offered a few brief remarks after thanking Ms. Bowditch for her leadership the past year.He commented on his appreciation for what takes place behind the scenes in leading the senate, that is, multiple meetings, contacting many constituencies, and the many other different activities that occur before motions come to the senate floor for a vote.

President Marcus began by thanking everyone who as served on committees or worked on putting motions forward, noting that initial skepticism concerning how much and what would be achieved by the senate was happily proven incorrect.He praised the efforts of many senators in effecting significant change in policy (the subpoenas issue) and procedures (siting of the basketball arena).He noted the coming year will be busy, and that several motions are ready to come forward in the fall concerning the assembly quorum issue, incomplete grades, membership on committees, and recommendations from the task force on athletics.In addition, the senate will launch several new processes next year.One new process would open up the Student Conduct Code Committee to the university and seek both input and, hopefully, endorsements after proposed revisions are vetted.Proposed revisions eventually would come before the Senate for a vote, but only after much wider and more collaboration among the University community.Second, there are a number of recommendations from the Non-Tenure Track Instructional Faculty (NTTIF) Committee would be opened up to a broader consulting process.Finally, there may be textbook issues that come forward.

The president alluded to an issue of paramount importance in the coming year: dealing with the fact that our resources are disappearing and there are strenuous pressures to move forward in many different ways with different models of education.One such pressure is likely the OUS subcommittee group often referred to as ìmore, better, fasterî.In context of a liberal arts university ? where, among our goals is a slow, contemplative approach to learning where students are engaged on a one-on-one basis and are taught how to think rather than what to think ? the ìmore, better, fasterî philosophy is potentially at odds.Saying that the state currently is mistaking efficiency for quality, he noted that educators must step forward to help people understand that quality can include efficiency, but it is not one and the same.President Marcus asked senate members to be prepared for involvement starting in October when the issues of general education requirements within the OUS and with community colleges and high schools is addressed; and, for a broader discussion on how we can make a difference in how the public views a liberal arts education, as well as how we view it ourselves.The difficult question for the senate, he suggested, is how it can guide this process.President Marcus ended his remarks saying that the UO, with its system of faculty governance, staff involvement in that governance, and the creative collaboration we exhibit, is well positioned and more than capable to guide such processes.

Presentation of the Wayne Westling Award for University Service and Leadership.President Marcus introduced Professor Dennis Hyatt, director of the law library, as the 2004 recipient of the Wayne T. Westling Award for University Leadership and Service.The president reminded everyone that the Westling Award was established by the University Senate in 2001 to honor faculty or staff who have provided long-term leadership and service to the university community.The award was named after faculty member Wayne T. Westling who embodied the award criteria: exemplary service to the university over a period of years through participation in committees, advisory bodies, or faculty elective positions; and inspired leadership and commitment to the principles of faculty governance, participatory decision making, and fostering a campus climate of inclusiveness and respect.In presenting the award, President Marcus acknowledged and remembered the remarkable contributions that Wayne Westling made to the university.The president noted that Wayne was a member of the law faculty, so it was especially meaningful that the award was made to the law librarian and during a meeting in the law school facilities.(For information, see http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~uosenate/WestlingAward.html.)

President Marcus lauded Mr. Hyatt, and librarians in general, for the central role they play in the life of a university ? libraries represent the centerpiece of a liberal arts education, being the special place on campus where scholarship, teaching, and service merge into a seamless whole.He continued that the Westling Award represents the senateís appreciation of those leaders who have committed their intellect, skills, passion, and considerable time to the betterment of the university, and cited some of Mr. Hyattís many accomplishments as examples.

Mr. Hyatt joined the University of Oregon as Associate Law Librarian in 1976, and became its director in 1981.In 1986-1988 he served on the University Senate and was that body's Parliamentarian for the 1987-1988 term.Critical to the library faculty, Mr. Hyatt serviced as a four-time elected member and as chair on the Library Faculty Personnel Committee.His knowledge of university governance procedures and his unfailingly fair and thoughtful comments landed him on the Library Faculty Standards Review Committee, which revisited and modified the promotion process and standards for all library faculty throughout the university.In addition, Mr. Hyatt served and/or lead law school committees dealing grants and awards, graduate teaching fellows, policies, building user groups, and facilities improvement.He was a member of the Museum of Natural Historyís Governing Board and served as co-chair of development and fundraising for the Eugene Concert Choir.Of particular note during the last decade are Mr. Hyatt's efforts and successes in bringing the Law School into the Internet age, creating shared governance on matters relating to information resources and research. 

Numerous nominators describe Dennisí leadership style and contributions in words such as ``compassion,'' `` kindness,'' `` caring,'' and `` true commitment to well being of others.''His mentoring role extended to students, faculty, and staff through guiding undergraduates to law careers, helping library personnel develop professional portfolios, and providing in-depth editing of a faculty members' draft manuscripts for books.One faculty member described Mr. Hyattís contributions to the Law School as helping to ìbuild the loom, design the patterns, and weave the threadsî, to which President Marcus added that there is no service contribution more fundamental, more profound, and more useful, than this.(Full text of President Marcusí award remarks can be viewed at http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~uosenate/dirArchive/WestlingAwardMay04.html.)

In accepting, Mr. Hyatt said that he was humbled to receive the award.He thanked his deans, the library staff, colleagues in the Law School, and his wife Patricia for their patience and kindnesses throughout his career.He remarked how he knew Wayne Westling from the first year he came to the University of Oregon and is doubly honored to receive an award established in his memory.He noted that Professor Westling was a citizen of the world who brought his wit and charm, his clear thinking, and his prodigious advocacy skills to the work of the University Senate.He commented that all in the university community are beneficiaries of Mr. Westlingís example and accomplishments.In closing, Mr. Hyatt thanked the University Senate members for honoring him so.(Full text of Mr. Hyatt's remarks can be viewed at http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~uosenate/dirArchive/DennisHyatt7Jun04.html.)


The meeting was adjourned at 4:12 p.m. with a reminder of the welcome and congratulatory reception following immediately in the Morse Commons area.

Addendum A -- Remarks from Senate President P. Lowell Bowditch (2003-04)

Well, this is the time for me to make my valedictorian comments before I ritually pass my gavel and copy of Roberts Rules of Order on to Andrew Marcus.As I look at my copy here, I cannot help but comment on the cover which Greg McLauchlan last year slipped beneath the plastic dust jacket and which reads ìRoberts Rules of Order, Birth to Three.îNeedless to say, last year, seven months pregnant, I stared uncomprehendingly at what I knew was a joke, but which I didnít really get, since, being childless, I was even more clueless about that venerable Eugene institution for new families than I was about the complexities of motions, amendments, deferrals to committees, and other fine and less fine points of parliamentary order.The coming year, I surmised, was going to be a challenge.And indeed, in many ways, it has been; but of course not only have the rewards far outweighed the stress, but there have been several staunch pillars of support to whom I have been able to turn for sage advice along the way.So, before I make some final comments, I would like extend my heartfelt thanks to a few people without whom this job would have been near impossible and surely less fun:Gwen Steigelman is not only the power that keeps the Senate machinery running so smoothly, but she has also been an inestimable source of balanced wisdom on a host of matters from proper procedure to understanding the nuanced implications of motions; Nathan Tublitz, outgoing chair of this yearís FAC, has been unstintingly generous with his time, advice, and advocacy for faculty and staffóand I have taken full advantage of his tireless commitment to campus governance by asking him to weigh in on countless matters; and Andrew Marcus who comes to the job of Senate President with the seasoned experience of one who, as Vice-President, committed substantial time to governance issues both officially on committees, and with his always ready and sound advice.I am also very grateful to Peter Gilkey not only for all his masterful maintenance of the Senate website, but more importantly for his tireless work as IFS President and head of the Eugene chapter of the AAUP with which the Senate collaborated on several panel discussions. Finally, Paul Simonds, as Senate Parliamentarian, has kept me honest in the sometimes daunting and Byzantine complexities of Senate procedure.My profuse thank you goes to all these individuals.

As I stand back and survey the issues that the Senate confronted this year, I think that the dominant theme running through them all is the importance of wide consultation, open discussion, and the canvassing of several perspectives before important decisions affecting the campus community are made.It is precisely this atmosphere of inclusiveness, open debate, and critical thinking that we encourage in our classrooms, and that we emphasize to our students as the hallmark of healthy political systems.And yet, too easily in what is increasingly a culture of specialization, a culture particularly pronounced in academe, it happens that major decisions affecting many can be made by just a few, without the benefits of a deliberative process, simply because it may save time, expense, and the anxiety stirred by critical voices. But that polyphony of opinions is precisely what can provide the strongest context for positive action; indeed, we all recognize that it is the unexpected angle, the neglected data, the surprising and enlightening arrangement of the pieces of a particularly thorny problem that often opens up new vistas in our research.What is also true is that paying attention to many different voices in a governance context provides exactly that benefit of the unexpected perspective, the novel approach, and the fresh vision, to the running of a university.Of course I concentrate here on the benefits and practical wisdom of wide consultation and open deliberation; it is also a political responsibility that all those who participate in the institution of the university should have some kind of voice in how affairs are run.

This academic year began with two issues that are rooted in economic and ideological conditions that run much more deeply than the university itself.The role of intercollegiate athletics and its dependence on private donation and market forces was one of those issues; the other was the universityís relationship to federal policy in regard to civic liberties and the right to privacy, an issue which came to a head over revisions to the Student Records Policy.In both these areas the academic year began with members of the university community feeling that the appropriate political processes of wide consultation and open deliberation had not sufficiently taken place; but such was the strong commitment to the principle of those processes that we now have, in the case of the Student Records Policy, not only a much stronger document that attends as far as possible to the privacy rights of students, but also an official university policy statement that articulates that respect for the civic liberties of all members of the university community.And what I wish to stress here is that this was the collaborative work of many different voicesóstudents, administrators, and facultyówho committed to the process of critical inquiry and open deliberation in order to craft the strongest possible document and statement on the critical issue of privacy and federal subpoenas.

On the issue of athletics, it has of course been a rollercoaster year for the entire university. But here, too, after a demoralizing fall quarter in which the appropriate process for campus planning had not been fully pursued in the case of the basketball arena, the principle of consultation and deliberation did return in the Senateís involvement with the Presidentís Task Force on Athletics and the ìfocus-groupsî organized around concepts of athletic reform and best practices as outlined in the Coalition on Intercollegiate Athleticsí Framework document. Not only did the Senate vote to join COIA, a significant endorsement of and commitment to this grass roots effort toward moderate national reform, but also the results from the focus-group discussions were transformed into explicit recommendations for action by the President and the University Senate.Here, again, by allowing for, and most crucially, listening to, a wide spectrum of opinions in a deliberative framework committed to moving forward on these issues, members of the Task Force achieved a very strong set of commonly endorsed goals.One of the most significant recommendations was for the Athletic department to make voluntary contributions to student scholarships; at a time when academics at the university is suffering from ever decreasing support from the state and an increased reliance on tuition dollars that fluctuate with enrollments, such a contribution makes not only a significant symbolic statement about the commitment of athletics to the educational mission, but it also makes a real difference to needy students.

Another issue that the Senate focused on this year in conjunction with the AAUP is the effects of the Patriot Act and other federal legislation on the treasured concept of academic freedom. At a co-sponsored panel discussion in March, panelists from the university, from the ACLU, and from the federal (local?) district attorneyís office gave their differing perspectives on such concerns as subpoenas of library records, the difficult status of international students, the changes in SEVIS-the Student and Exchange Visitor Information System, and the elusive implications of the Patriot Act itself.Again, the principle of open discussion allowed for greater clarity about an area that is obscured by myth, anxiety, and the very real mystifications of complex laws.At a time when some organizations are encouraging students to maintain websites listing professors whose teaching is branded as ëleft-wing,í or when legislation is considered in Congress to curtail Title VI funding to ìareaî or postcolonial studies programs that teach courses critical of American international policy, or when the federal government seeks the names and other information about participants in an anti-war conference, as occurred at Drake University, it is clear that the principle of academic freedom must not only be protected but that it must assert itself in the process of ensuring that protection:the liberty to discuss, debate, critique, and deliberate across the entire ideological spectrum is precisely what must be deployed to ensure that such freedom continues.Thus, such panel discussions as we had in March, and the resolution petitioning our Congressional delegation to seek revision of the Patriot Act and related orders, are only a start in what ought to be an on-going effort to rigorously defend the university as a sacred place for open, unfettered inquiry. 

Indeed, faculty and university community members should not take what they do and enjoy for granted.To move back from the national to the local, or perhaps I should say state, level, most of you are probably aware that there are significant potential changes for the OUS system currently being discussed in Salem.As the head of the Interinstitutional Faculty Senate, Peter Gilkey, and IFS representatives Nathan Tublitz and Jim Earl, have reported in previous Senate meetings, there is an effort to promote a ìmore efficient delivery of education for a greater number of students.îThe working group on ìExcellence in Delivery and Productivityî backs this effort with a series of recommendations that may become legislative concepts or policy packages.While this effort is on the surface something that no one would argue withómore students getting educatedóthere are components to it that faculty should become familiar with so that their input can provide the necessary oversight to what could transpire as curricular changes being mandated from the top-down.Faculty should rightly be wary of initiatives that employ the lexicon of the business world, treating education exclusively as a market product and students as potentially fickle consumers, where the intent is to do more with less, a concept that increases profits for corporations and dividends for stockholders, but a very problematic concept in the abstract field of knowledge.Of course, in our current climate of scarce money for public education, we may not have the luxury to disregard some of these financially savvy business approaches.But what faculty should and must do is become familiar with these approaches and their implications, and demand to be the deliberative voice in any process that may seek to change the fundamental nature of how higher education is conducted.And, finally, if it is the responsibility of faculty to find the time for such service amidst their busy schedules devoted to research and teaching, it is equally the responsibility of administrators not only to recognize that a consultative approach makes for sound decisions, but also to recognize that the service devoted to such open discussion and deliberation takes considerable time and thought and needs to be acknowledgedóand rewardedóalong with teaching and research as indispensable to the environment of higher education.

No doubt many of the issues that came up this year will continue to need attention.To indulge in one last reflection on having taken up this job as a new mother, I soon realized in the fall, that there were some similarities between being Senate President and taking care of a newborn:there were some issues which, as soon as I thought that I had successfully put them to sleep in the nursery and was tiptoeing out of the room, began to cry to be picked up again.So it goes.Thank you all for a great year.Andrew Marcus, who will step into the presidential shoes momentarily, will do a terrific job.

Web page spun on 18 March 2004 by Peter B Gilkey 202 Deady Hall, Department of Mathematics at the University of Oregon, Eugene OR 97403-1222, U.S.A. Phone 1-541-346-4717 Email:peter.gilkey.cc.67@aya.yale.edu of Deady Spider Enterprises