Minutes of the University Senate Meeting February 9, 2005
Present: E. Chan, C. Cherry, D. Eisert, A. Emami, S. Eyster, L. Feldman, L. Freinkel, S. Gary, P. Gilkey, S. Haynes, L. Huaxin, N. Hudson, J. Hurwit, J. Jablonski, K. Kennedy, P. Keyes, C. Lachman, L. Lindstrom, S. Maier, W. A. Marcus, A. Mathas, JA. McLucas, C. McNelly, L. Moses, L. Nelson, M. Pangburn, G. Psaki, M. Raymer, L. Robare, G. Sayre, E. Scott, A. Shaw-Phillips, E. Singer, D. Sinha, S. Stoll, P. Swangard, J. Wagenknecht, L. Wellman, S. Wells, R. Yang
Excused: McCole, P. Scher, K. Sheehan
Absent: G. Epps, K. McPherson, S. Simmons
Remarks from University President David Frohnmayer. President Frohnmayer commented on the success of the recent gala to kick-off the public phase of the UO’s Campaign Oregon $600 million fundraising drive. With $316 million in committed gifts, the UO is past the halfway mark and on track for successful completion of the campaign. President Frohnmayer also expressed concerns about the budget in the current legislative session. He noted that although the governor’s proposed budget was lean, it reflected a priority for higher education. Even within the context of the state’s difficult fiscal circumstances, the president was hopeful for a favorable outcome. The president also reported that the university completed negotiations for the purchase of the Williams Bakery site for future university development. He said there is not a commitment or decision at this point concerning the use of the property for an arena or any other building, but that the property is strategically located and it was in the best interest of the university to make the purchase.
President Frohnmayer continued his remarks by noting the upcoming retirements of several senior administrators -- vice presidents John Moseley, Lorraine Davis, and Dan Williams -- this June and next year. The search is well underway for a new vice president for administration whose job duties will add budget and finance responsibilities to the portfolio, but will remove intercollegiate athletics, which instead will report directly to the president. The president said that he intends his relationship with Athletics Director Bill Moos to be a personal one that involves regular consultation and updating by the athletics director. President Frohnmayer continued that the general counsel will have an enhanced role in dealing with matters of athletics compliance regarding rules of eligibility, sanctions, and other issues involved with the NCAA. In addition, the president felt that it was in the best interest of the university to have a part-time special assistant to the president for intercollegiate athletics, and that he has asked Dan Williams to fill the position. The special assistant will report to the president, but will be physically housed with the athletics department.
The president spoke next about the administrative transition of the provost’s office. He remarked how much this university will miss the services provided by both John Moseley and Lorraine Davis, whose length of tenure has been accompanied by unusually strong talent, judgment, and integrity over a very long period of time. The search for a new provost will begin later this spring. During the course of the next year, vice presidents Moseley and Davis will continue a job share arrangement so that one or both are on campus on a continuing basis to ensure a seamless transition from their positions.
During a question and answer session Senate President Marcus asked the president if he saw the new reporting structure for the athletics director as one that might become codified in the future. President Frohnmayer responded that Athletics Director Moos has been with the UO for 10 years and has earned the trust and confidence of the academic community. He noted that there is likely no organizational chart that would survive the transition of a new president, but that he is very comfortable with the new reporting relationship and the structure will remain indefinitely while he occupies his position at the UO.
In a similar vein, President Frohnmayer also commented briefly on the Coalition on Intercollegiate Athletics (COIA) resolution now due to come before the senate in March. He noted that the proposed guidelines encourage the development of “best practices” in intercollegiate athletics, making suggestions how to achieve best practices rather than requiring universal guideline implementation. However, the president voiced concern with wording in the proposed motion that it would charge the Intercollegiate Athletic Committee (IAC) with determining which of the COIA guidelines should be implemented at the University of Oregon. He wanted to be clear, for purposed of future senate debate, that some decisions regarding athletics governance and compliance are made in governance structures other than the IAC. For example, the Athletics Governance Committee is the chief policy setting committee for Oregon athletics on reviewing admissions and personnel decisions, and he would not be comfortable endorsing the IAC for that particular mandate. Further, COIA guidelines reccommend “uniform reporting of athletics budgets.” President Frohnmayer pointed out the difficulty universities across the country have in finding any sense of budget uniformity because debt structures are carried in different ways. He continued by saying that expenditures, indirect costs, operations, maintenance, and depreciation are handled through different accounting systems, which was one of the vexing problems he encountered while serving on the NCAA Board of Directors when trying to make comparisons of the athletics budgets among the universities. He stated that he did not know if uniform reporting was possible; nor did he feel it is appropriate to delegate such reporting to a university committee. The president wanted to be clear that these two particular concerns were known prior to moving forward on the proposed motion.
Senate President Marcus followed-up with a question regarding the status of a task force recommendation that a university committee on advancement be formed to provide consultation and guidance on how to deal with issues of commercialization and the many types of stresses that go with the development process. President Frohnmayer replied that the issue was under active consideration and debate by the administration to determine the best way to accommodate the suggestion, preferably within the existing advisory structures.
State of the Athletics Department Address. Athletics Director Bill Moos began his report by acknowledging the stability that the UO’s athletics program has achieved due in part to the leadership and administrative guidance provided by President Frohnmayer and Vice President Williams. Moos concentrated his remarks to topics in the topical areas of accomplishments, budget, facilities, and NCAA reforms. He noted that during the last ten years the UO has won ten Pac10 championships, countless honors for both teams and individuals, and is ranked very high within the PAC-10 conference regarding All-Conference Academic Honorees and Academic All-Americans. He continued saying the number one goal of intercollegiate athletics is the education and graduation of the student athletes. This year, of the 402 total student athletes at the UO, 303 student athletes are benefiting from some level of athletic scholarships, with the total value of the scholarships or grants exceeding $5.2 million self-generated dollars. Further, in most years, student athletes graduate at a higher rate than the general UO student population (63% compared to 60% last academic year). He remarked that currently 27% of student athletes are minority students compared with 13% in the general UO student population. The UO is now in compliance with Title IX (gender equity legislation) and, over the past 12 years, has added women’s golf, soccer, and most recently, lacrosse. He also remarked about the nationally acclaimed SOAR program at the UO which works with students to develop life skills.
Regarding budget issues, Mr. Moos reported that the UO athletics department is one of only 17 departments in the country that is 100% self-sufficient (i.e., operated without state general fund money). The additional revenue stream realized by the Autzen Stadium expansion enabled the athletics department to reduce its level of institutional support to zero, and thus redirect that support to other academic programs. Successful athletic teams accelerated the plan by three years, thus the current year is the second year of self-sufficiency. Mr. Moos noted that during this fiscal year the athletics department operates on a $37.5 million budget. The budget reflects income of approximately $11 million from ticket sales, $11 million from fundraising, $8.5 million from television and PAC-10 game revenues, and $7 million from sponsorships, rentals, fees and other miscellaneous areas. Expenditures included approximately $11.5 million for payroll, $11 million for sport-related expenses (e.g., recruiting, team equipment, training tables, etc.), $10.2 million in administrative, faculty, and support expenses, and $4.8 million for UO payments (e.g., student tuition, housing, administrative assessments, etc.). In all, about $6.8 million of the athletics department self-generated budget goes back to the UO in various forms of support which includes salaries, tuition, bookstore text book fee reduction (10%), intramural and club sport support ($43,000) and other miscellaneous areas.
Mr. Moos continued by comparing budget growth over the past 10 years as follows: total budget from $18.5 to $37.5 million; from 11,000 to 33,000 full price football tickets sales; from $400,000 to $1.5 million revenues for one football game; from $2 million to $5 million for women’s sports budget; donors gifts from $1.1 million in ’94-95 to $11 million in ’04-05. Mr. Moos cited a recent study that indicated that the combined impact of UO sports and hosted sporting events (such as OSAA football, high school basketball championships USA Junior Olympics Track and Field this past summer) generated an estimated $23.7 million for the Eugene/Springfield area. He noted that such hosted competitions bring from 300 to 400 high school student athletes to the UO campus, many with parents looking on, which provides an excellent recruiting tool for the university’s admissions office.
In the area of facilities, Mr. Moos said the athletics department has been very aggressive in facility enhancements in order to attract the best student athletes. During the last 10 years the department has spent $160 million on facilities, with the majority of the funds self-generated (only $30 million of the $160 million is in bonds). Lastly, Mr. Moos reported that the three areas of highest priority for NCAA reforms are recruiting, academic standards, and cost containment. Some of the reforms are already in place, lead by former UO president Miles Brand who now heads the NCAA. The athletics department supports reforms such as standards for initial eligibility, making satisfactory degree progress and graduation rates. He noted, too, that there are efforts underway to look at the athletics “arms race” and ways to legally control it without being unfairly disadvantaged. We are competing well with a group of the top 30 schools in the nation and want to be able to maintain high levels of competition.
During a question and answer session ASUO senator Stephanie Stoll asked about some dual use issues between club sports and athletics. Mr. Moos replied he was aware of space conflicts and was working with Dennis Munroe in the PARS program to find some workable solution. Senator Dev Sinha, mathematics, asked Mr. Moos to elaborate on the new NCAA reforms regarding graduation rates. Mr. Moos responded the under the new rules each student athlete’s progress will be calculated by how many academic units they are passing, and unsatisfactory progress would result in loss of scholarships in that program. So it behooves coaches to recruit qualified students and make sure they are applying themselves in their degree programs. When asked how the UO would fare if the rules were in place currently, Mr. Moos replied that because some exceptional athletes leave school early to begin professional careers, the graduation rates might work against us in football, for example. Mr. Moos said he is supporting legislation within the PAC-10 that would require football student athletes to have passed a set number of academic credits in order to be eligible for a bowl game. (Some student athletes take a month off from school mid term to try out for a professional team rather than staying focused on their academic requirements.) Mr. Moos noted that UO athletes rely heavily on summer school classes to help them meet their academic progress requirements and graduate in a timely manner.
President Marcus asked about the task force recommendation that the athletics department contribute to academic scholarships. Mr. Moos replied the that the athletics department will implement the recommendation with the actual amount of funding support determined each year, dependent on the revenue stream. The department is in the process of completing the budget for next year and determining the scholarship contribution amount, which will go toward funding presidential scholarships. In a similar vein, President Marcus asked about the task force recommendation for earlier academic advising of student athletes, to which Mr. Moos replied they are in the beginning stages of implementing advising improvements. President Marcus commented that unlike most universities, academic advising of UO student athletes reports through the vice president of academic affairs.
Mr. Nathan Tublitz, biology, asked how sports and athletics will fit into the overall mission of the university over the next ten years. Mr. Moos said athletics will continue to be in sync with the academic mission of the university, and that the young people recruited need to see the commitment the athletics department has not only to their good experience in athletics, but to fulfilling their requirements academically. He said this has always been the number one priority in the programs of which he has been in charge. He predicted many more regulation from the NCAA with regard to recruiting, academic reform, and the cost continuum, and felt that the UO is an example of the right way to do things. He stated that as long as he is director he will strive to meet the goals and objectives of the UO; having a positive, clean intercollegiate athletic program can do a great deal overall to showcase the UO on a national stage. He noted that when you buy a USA Today newspaper, 25% of the paper concerns sports because many people are interested in sports. Our solid intercollegiate athletics program can be used to highlight the other great accomplishments of this university. For example, during national and regionally televised football and basketball games viewers see promotions for our academic accomplishments. The promotion of Heisman Award nominee Joey Harrington in downtown Manhattan received attention from The Boston Globe, The Washington Post, USA Today, and several magazines who sent reporters to the UO for the first time, and brought attention and promotion to the entire campus and its standing as a comprehensive research institution.
Progress on the Diversity Action Plan. -Vice Provost for Institutional Equity and Diversity Greg Vincent reported that work on the diversity plan is progressing well, and that he has been actively engaged in a series of community conversations about developing the plan. In order to help with construction of the diversity plan he encouraged dialog and feedback for the plan’s five main strategic directions: to develop cultural competence/proficiency; build critical mass; expand and fill the student and faculty “pipeline”; strengthen and increase community linkages, both internal and external; and develop and reinforce the diversity infrastructure.
Mr. Vincent gave examples of some diversity building efforts already underway. The Center on Diversity and Community (CODAC) is piloting a cultural competency project in which student affairs directors participate in a cultural competency curriculum to help improve cultural competency skills, cross-cultural communications, and the ability to work diverse learning and work environments. Mr. Vincent noted that building critical mass speaks to our efforts to retain and recruit faculty, staff, and students to our campus from underrepresented groups. He remarked specifically that the Latino population is the fastest growing minority population, yet it is the group that is least served by the UO and the OUS system. Mr. Vincent continued that it is important to make efforts at pre-college level to make sure that students from underrepresented minority groups, especially those from low socio-economic backgrounds, are prepared to move into college, and that at the undergraduate level, we are preparing these students to move into academia – the professoriate, doctoral, and other graduate programs. Mr. Vincent commented, too, about a young scholars program, funding by the OUS through a federal grant, to work with 25 eighth grade students to help them get prepared for college. The fourth strategic direction is particularly important, although perhaps the most difficult. The UO is part of a larger community (city, county, state) in which recent events such as alleged racial profiling by police and distribution of hate literature have made a number of our students and community members feel unsafe. He said the UO is looking to partner with community organizations to create an environment that is welcoming to all. Lastly, Mr. Vincent said that although there are quite a number of diversity activities going on, there are gaps that need to be filled. By analyzing our diversity infrastructure we can leverage the resources that we are currently using in our diversity efforts to make sure we are getting the most for our dollars and efforts.
Mr. Vincent concluded his remarks indicating that the advisory diversity working group he has put together is working on these strategic directions and will return to the senate with a set of preliminary recommendations on how each the five strategic initiatives would be put to work. It is the working group’s hope to be back on the senate agenda in the near future for additional feedback and reaction.
During a question and answer session Senator Peter Gilkey, mathematics, asked how the University Senate and the various university committees are involved in development of these recommendations and initiatives. Mr. Vincent replied that he has checked in earlier this academic year to make sure he was on the right track, and that recommendations were being developed by the diversity work group, to be brought to the senate for additional feedback. Mr. Gilkey clarified his question by asking how specific university committees (those reporting to the senate) were involved in developing the recommendations, stating concerns that there should be a pro-active engagement with the senate rather than a top-down presentation. Mr. Vincent replied that the work group is comprised of students, faculty, and officers of administration, and there have been numerous opportunities for anyone to become involved in the process. He stated that no one “owned” the process, other than being charged as the point person on a particular initiative.
Discussion ensued concerning the role that standing committees might play in developing the diversity plan recommendations, or the need to develop a new standing committee on diversity. There was some disagreement about how best to cover all the many aspects involved with diversity issues that include cultural, curricular, and access issues to name only a few. Further discuss was framed by Mr. Vincent giving more detail on the structure of his diversity working group (having a point person for each of the five strategic directions). Present Marcus suggested that members of relevant standing committees might serve as liaisons between the senate and the relevant working groups, and that perhaps one or two senators might also serve with the Oversight Group. Mr. Vincent replied that the working group would be certain it connected with the relevant standing committees. The discussion concluded with Mr. Vincent saying he would request that a senate group, whether ad hoc or a standing committee, be created to integrate with his diversity working group.
On another topic, Senator Lisa Freinkel, English, asked about the cultural competency project. Mr. Vincent replied that it is planned as a set of modules that the participants would move through. Currently, the working group is looking for the appropriate academic department and administrative division for the project. He said the goal is to get it operational and running, then open it up for broader use.
Report from Interinstitutional Faculty Senate(IFS). IFS Senator Jeanne Wagenknecht, finance, reported on the recent IFS meeting held on the OSU campus. Senator Wagenknecht noted topics of discussion included the DARS computer linked degree audit system, politics of lobbying for the higher education budget, codes of ethics for faculty members, the foreign language entrance requirement, and common course numbering throughout the OUS. Senator Ms. Wagenknecht said OUS is considering using DARS (currently in used by the UO) to streamline the process of tracking courses, transferring between universities, and auditing degree requirement for students. It has the potential to be a very useful tool for advisors, students, and universities by linking student information among higher educational institutions.
Ms. Wagenknecht continued by saying there was much discussion concerning the politics of funding support from the state. The recurring theme was that we need to be active in Salem, advocating for our students and education if we want a favorable outcome. On another topic, OUS Chancellor George Pernsteiner asked the IFS for information regarding faculty codes of ethics, especially as it relates to relationships between faculty members and students. Senator Wagenknecht said she is chairing a committee to identify such codes throughout the system. (The UO’s policy on consensual relationships was developed by the senate in 1996.)
Vice President Lorraine Davis clarified Senator Wagenknecht's comments regarding circulating rumors that the foreign language requirement was threatened by potential discontinuance. Ms. Davis stated that there was no movement to reduce or weaken the foreign language requirement. She said the issue had come up because many of the small schools in eastern Oregon are eliminating foreign languages on the basis that a student can be admitted into a university without the requirement, which is waived sometimes if it is the only missing requirement, but which it is expected to be made up before graduation. She said the intent of the proposal was not as interpreted (in the emails), and that there is no change in the foreign language requirement. Senator Gilkey added that the Undergraduate Council is considering some of the issues related to admitting students with deficiencies, such as should the process have academic oversight; should all deficiencies or some of them be made up, and who should oversee the make-up process.
Lastly, Senator Wagenknecht noted that two bills have been drafted to require a common course numbering system throughout the university system. Vice President Davis Lorraine commented that the bills call for common course numbers, content, and credits as well as some issues related to expectations and requirements related to transfer credits. She stated that the bills are in draft form, and reminded everyone that 30-40%of the bills that are drafted never come out of committee. Nevertheless, should the bills make it through the committees, we have to be ready to use the hearing opportunities to respond. In the meantime, she indicated that the administration will work with our legislative representatives and the chair of those involved legislative committees.
Senator Gilkey added a final comment that he had received a memo from OUS which he believes indicated progress concerning the ORP. However, he noted the document was not easy to understand, and thus he requested a more transparent statement.
Announcements and Communications from the floor
There were no additional comments or communications from the floor.
As noted at the beginning of the meeting, Motion US04/05-5-regarding the Coalition on Intercollegiate Athletics Guidelines on Academic Integrity in Intercollegiate Athletics was postponed until the March 9, 2004 meeting.
With no other business, the meeting was adjourned at 4:57 p.m.
|Web page spun on 10 March 2005 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:firstname.lastname@example.org of Deady Spider Enterprises|