Minutes of the University Senate Meeting March 9, 2005
Present: C. Cherry, D. Eisert, A. Emami, S. Eyster, L. Feldman, L. Freinkel, S. Gary, P. Gilkey, S. Haynes, L. Huaxin, N. Hudson, J. Jablonski, K. Kennedy, P. Keyes, C. Lachman, S. Maier, W. A. Marcus, A. Mathas, J. McCole, A. McLucas, C. McNelly, K. McPherson, L. Moses, L. Nelson, G. Psaki, M. Raymer, L. Robare, G. Sayre, P. Scher, E. Scott, A. Shaw-Phillips, K. Sheehan, E. Singer, D. Sinha, S. Stoll, P. Swangard, J. Wagenknecht, L. Wellman,
Excused: G. Epps, L. Lindstrom, M. Pangburn, S. Simmons,
Absent: E. Chan, J. Hurwit, S. Wells, R. Yang
Call to order
Senate President W. Andrew Marcus called the regular meeting of the University Senate to order at 3:05 p.m. in 182 Lillis. President Marcus noted that the spring senate meetings will be held upstairs in 282 Lillis.
Approval of minutes
Minutes from the January 12, 2005 meeting and the February 9, 2005 meeting were approved as distributed.
State of the University
Remarks from Senate President W. Andrew Marcus. President Marcus commented that it is time again for nominations for university committees and the Senate. Elections will held on-line late April and early May. He remarked that it is critical to recruit colleagues to engage in faculty governance activity.
President Marcus updated the senators regarding the progress on Student Conduct Code revisions, saying the committee would not be able to fully vet the proposed revisions by the end of the academic year. Instead, the committee will use next year for deliberations of the proposed revisions and will offer the final revision in a motion to the senate next academic year. Similarly, the Non-Tenure Track Instructional Faculty (NTTIF) Committee will provide a progress report on its activities during the April or May senate meeting. It is working in conjunction with Vice Provost Russ Tomlin, academic affairs, to develop plans for implementing recommendations made in previous reports. Mr. Tomlin indicated that some recommendations would be implemented by the end of this academic year.
Remarks from University President David Frohnmayer. President Frohnmayer reported on topics related to the actions of the state legislature and the Ways and Means Committee, pending legislation, tuition issues, and possible salary increases. Regarding the Ways and Means Committee (the budgeting committee), the president said that because of the more positive March revenue forecast, the general expectation is that most of the additional $200 million will go toward to K-12 education, but it makes more secure a base budget for higher education. President Frohnmayer said there appears to be no general hostility to the direction of the OUS system, but the budget is limited by the total funds available.
President Frohnmayer commented briefly on the recent Oregon Supreme Court opinion concerning the PERS legislation. The court found two provisions unconstitutional, which affect both current and recently retired members of the system. These decisions will have no apparent fiscal impact on this biennium’s budget. President Frohnmayer stated the adjustments would be made out of existing reserves that are due to stock market gains. Turning to tuition issues, President Frohnmayer indicated that a tuition increase of 5% to 7% is proposed for the coming year, with another 5% increase proposed for the following year. He commented on a proposed tuition freeze legislation which would buy down the tuition amounts by the infusion of new general fund support. The president stated the full price for a tuition buy-down to zero is about $32 million, and there is no other apparent ready source to find that level of funding, other than from other state agencies budgets. If the $32 million were not forthcoming, and the tuition increase reduced to 0% by legislative action or agreement, this would result in a net budget cut to the UO. President Frohnmayer wanted to make clear the fiscal consequence of an underfunded tuition freeze -- he said the legislature could decide to buy back all or part of the proposed increases; then the question would be, From what source would the monies come? The Oregon Opportunity Grant program is one possible source. The president opined that the thought of a general tuition buy-down, which affects all students, regardless of income level, by reducing their costs at the expense of students who are beneficiaries of the Oregon Opportunity Grant, seems a perverse way of making higher education more accessible. He noted that such is one of the trade-offs currently discussed. He also mentioned a second tuition-related proposal to freeze tuition payments between the 12th and 15th credit hour. We have phased out the tuition plateau at the UO, and did so by keeping the tuition discount practice for students that are willing to take classes at non-peak hours. The president reported that the UO has seen a modest increase in number of course hours taken by our students on campus, and that there has been no detriment to students’ degree progress by removing the plateau. OSU had different results, and reinstated their plateau. It is clear legislation to re-establishing plateaus would have a very different impact on each of the OUS institutions depending on the composition of our student body in terms of proportion of full-time and part-time students. The president stated it is not in the best interest of the public or the UO to have a uniform policy throughout the OUS system to be regulated by the legislature.
President Frohnmayer spoke briefly on other legislative bills related to higher education, specifically, proposals for common course numberings among OUS universities and community colleges for similarly named courses. The UO has lobbied against these bills, saying that the courses are unique to the development by each university’s faculty, which is one aspect of academic freedom and institutional autonomy. President Frohnmayer said it is our belief that the merits are not in favor in the passage of these bills and the impulse behind them is the sense that when students transfer from one institution to another they are faced with needless credit transfer barriers or not receiving credit for course work they have already accomplished. The UO is monitoring these bills very closely, as is the Interinstitutional Faculty Senate, and he reported that they are working together on these matters.
Regarding the issue of salary improvement and compensation for faculty at the UO, the president said there is positive indication that there will be no continuation of the wage and salary freeze, but until the budget is adopted, he cannot say that is for certain. The university is actively engaged in planning for an appropriate system of salary remuneration and increases. Expectations are that salary increases will probably involve a minimum of 2% across the board for cost of living and up to 2% for merit and other equity adjustments. The process will be guided by the principles of the Senate Budget Committee’s Whitepaper.
During a question and answer session, Senator Michael Raymer, physics, asked if the extra $200 million forecasted state revenue would be subject to the “kicker” provision. President Frohnmayer replied that it would not, and would be available revenue for funding budget items.
Report from Interinstitutional Faculty Senate (IFS) on OUS activities—IFS Senator Jeanne Wagenknecht, finance, reported that things are going well and that the IFS would meet again in April.
STANDING COMMITTEE REPORTS
Winter 2005 Preliminary Curriculum Report. Mr. Paul Engelking, chemistry, and chair of the Committee on Courses, noted several changes in the preliminary winter 2005 curriculum report. First, added to Other Curricular Matters is the renaming of the Multimedia Design Program, in the School of Architecture and Allied Arts, to Digital Arts, effective summer term 2005. Second, Asia 350 What is Asia: Theoretical Debates is removed from the body of the report due to pending issues regarding more specific course prerequisite and will appear only in the pending section; course is approved pending resolution of the course prerequisite issue. Third, the line “Course still satisfies Category B: Identity, Pluralism and Tolerance Multicultural requirement” was added to ENG 4/588 Race and Representation in Film: [Topic], to make it clear the course still satisfies the multicultural requirement. Fourth, administrative changes were made to GEOL 311 Earth Materials (5) and GEOL 350 Structural Geology (3); prerequisites were changed per department memo. Lastly, a course was listed incorrectly in the denied section and will read PPPM 203 Sustainable Environments (4) instead of PPPM 202 Healthy Communities .
In addition to these changes, Mr. Engelking noted the new policy for the routing of minor changes (determining which curricular matters go before the Committee on Courses), and the updated undergraduate general education group-requirement policies. With no other additions or corrections, President Marcus asked for a vote to accept the curriculum report, as corrected. The 2005 Winter Term Curriculum Report was accepted by voice vote. (See http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~uosenate/dirsen045/CurRptW05Fin.html for final report.)
President Marcus reported on that the ad hoc committee to review experimental course offering policies has been tabled due to the upcoming legislative outcome regarding the standardizing of certain courses numbers through out the OUS system.
Report on proposed revisions to the Long Range Campus Development Plan. Chris Ramey, university architect, reported that his office is currently in the final draft of the plan, after a well attended, productive open house last week. Mr. Ramey continued by saying the next step is a review by the Campus Planning Committee during spring term followed by a public hearing. Finally, the plan will go to President Frohnmayer for review and adoption by the university. (See http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~uplan/LRCDPDraftPlan1web.pdf for draft copy of the new plan.)
Mr. Ramey reminded everyone that campus planning provides a guide to make sure the campus is flexible, functional, and a beautiful place. The plan helps us to avoid mistakes that have happened in the past, while retaining the best qualities of the campus. It also prevents losing open spaces and the distinguishing features of the campus due to new construction. Since the plan was last updated 15 years ago, the university has added 1 million square feet of new space. The proposed changes make the document easier to use and it strengthens the most critical components, which are preservation of the open space framework. It clearly describes the review process and increases development capacity as possible ways to meet the needs of the UO in the future.
Mr. Ramey reviewed the proposed processes by which decisions are made using plan, depending on the type of project (see proposed Long-Range Campus Development Plan for decision making flow charts at http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~uplan/LRCDPDraftPlan1web.pdf). A recent new project type includes funding through foundations, such as with the Chiles and Bowerman Family buildings. The Campus Planning Committee has a review role throughout the process, and does the review based on the appropriate project criteria. Mr. Ramey said that the various decision-making patterns afford flexibility while still retaining review and planning committee involvement.
During a question and answer session, questions focused on the process used with projects involving external private donors or foundations who provide funds for buildings. It was clarified that the planning committee is not the final decision maker – it is advisory committee to the president, who makes the final decision. However, the planning committee will now have input and make recommendations based on the overall campus plan and relevant policies and campus criteria. To a question from Senator Gordon Sayre, English, asking if the senate is directly involved with the planning committee, it was clarified that the Campus Planning Committee is a standing committee that reports to both the senate, annually, and to the administration. To follow-up on the issue of the senate’s involvement with the planning committee, President Marcus will ask Campus Planning Committee Chair Carole Daley, Chris Ramey, and Ed Singer to meet with the Senate executive Committee to further deliberate on the matter.
Announcement and Communications from the floor
Senator Anne Dhu-McLucas, music, complained about the excessive noise created by some EMU area activities occurring during class hours. She was referred to Scheduling and/or Student Life to make a formal complaint.
Motion US04/05-5— regarding the Coalition on Intercollegiate Athletics Guidelines on Academic Integrity on Intercollegiate Athletics (COIA). Senate President Andrew Marcus provided some background to this motion by stating that the University Senate joined COIA last year, along with about 47 other university or faculty senates, that were concerned about the interactions of intercollegiate athletics and academic programs, and their effect on student athletes. President Marcus noted several considerations to take into account before acting on the motion. First, he made it clear that adopting the motion (to endorse the COIA Guidelines) would not commit the university to adhere to any of the regulations or practices outlined in the document – it is meant as guidelines for best practices, which admittedly, may not fit all institutions; the UO has the choice of whether, and which ones, to follow or not. Second, because the document is being presented for endorsement by all the COIA member senates, it is inappropriate to amend the document; the motion put forth is to endorse the COIA document. With no further comment, the motion was seconded and brought to the floor for discussion.
Whereas, the University of Oregon University Senate is a member of the Coalition on Intercollegiate Athletics (COIA), and;
Whereas, the COIA steering committee has requested that faculty leaders from member institutions vote on acceptance of a COIA document that details suggested best practice guidelines for Academic Integrity in Intercollegiate Athletics, and;
Whereas, the COIA document does not mandate practices at member schools, but rather, states that, “The object [of the best practices document] is not to prescribe what schools must do, but to suggest issues that schools need to consider and approaches that may with adaptation fit local needs and strengthen the way athletics supports the educational mission. Where other local practices already accomplish the goal of academic integrity, those may in fact constitute best practices for that institution.”
Therefore, be it resolved that the University of Oregon University Senate:
1. Endorses the COIA document on best practice guidelines for academic integrity in intercollegiate athletics, and;
2. Charges the Intercollegiate Athletics Committee with recommending to the University Senate and Administration which of the COIA guidelines should be implemented at the University of Oregon.
Mr. Jim Earl, English, who was instrumental in getting COIA organized and running, spoke in support of the motion. He indicated that much vetting had transpired in developing the guidelines, and that the leaderships of the NCAA, the academic advisors, and athletics directors were supportive of the principles stated in the guidelines. Further, he emphasized that the document reflected moderation, recognizing that there may be objections to some guidelines at the local level. He stressed it was intended as a functional document to act as oversight in addressing systemic problems in athletics. He concluded that it was a reasoned, non-binding proposal for best practices guidelines on academic integrity in intercollegiate athletics. The ideals that COIA embraces are very widely shared among university faculty and we are sensitive and alert to the many forces that have the potential to erode our faith in the institution. He stated that the guidelines present absolutely no danger to the UO since it is non-binding; he urged support for the motion.
Mr. Jim Isenberg, mathematics, and chair of the Intercollegiate Athletics Committee (IAC), reported that the IAC reviewed the guideline and found three types of statements included: regulations, best practices, and statements of principles. Among the regulations were three specific regulations that are proposed for adoption by the NCAA. The first is that athletic scholarships be awarded on the presumption that they last 5 years or until graduation, and decisions to revoke a scholarship must be made under the jurisdiction of the university’s chief academic advisor, which in the case of the UO it is the provost. The second regulation proposes the collection of data on student athletes’ academic performance by course section. The data is to be reported to the senate and monitored for any preferential treatment. The third proposed NCAA regulation bans so-called divided competitive season; it outlaws intercollegiate competitions during a non-traditional playing season.
Mr. Isenberg continued by commenting that there are more than 50 proposals listed as best practices. The idea is to raise issues for schools to consider and to suggest approaches individual schools may wish to follow to resolve the issues. Included are proposals regarding admissions and closely monitoring academic performance of special student athlete admissions. Also among the best practices are proposals to reduce, and possibly phase out, athletic scholarships in favor of need based scholarships; to scrutinize courses offered by the athletic department; to reduce the season length; and to work to avoid competition during class time. In addition, the document contains a number of broad statements of principles concerning the value of inter-collegiate athletics and its relationship to the academic mission of the university, the role of the student athlete on campus, and the relation of the faculty to athletics.
Mr. Isenberg commented that the majority of the IAC members expressed support for the overall intention of COIA to raise awareness among university faculty members regarding issues related to intercollegiate athletics. Although there was broad support for many of the statements of principle, and for a number of the best practices, several IAC were not happy that the guidelines were offered as a single document for an “up or down” vote as a whole. There was some disagreement with several of the principles and uncertainty regarding what the UO was to do with the best practices on our own campus. He noted the committee was dismayed at the relatively small amount of time to examine the large number of proposals. Much of the IAC meeting time centered on one or two individual proposals that were problematic for some members, such as proposals for data gathering and tracking academic progress. In summary, one argument made was that the document, as a whole, is a positive step toward comprehensive discussion of athletics on campus, and thus one should vote for it. On the other hand, the point was made that since a vote for the document may necessarily be construed as support for all its provisions, anyone with severe reservations concerning one or more proposals should vote against it. The final IAC vote was four in favor and six opposed to the guidelines document. Mr. Isenberg commented that it would certainly be nice to have a lot more discussion, and emphasized that most of the members liked the idea of these questions coming up.
During a question and answer session, many of the issues that surfaced in the IAC discussions were raised y senators, too: are we bound by the document if we endorse it; must we adopt all the proposals; do we have latitudes to implement some proposals, but not all; and how does the IAC fit in with endorsing some the proposals for governance structure on campuses. Other senators raised the issue of what authority or “clout” this document would have on campus. To these concerns, the general response was that the document is meant to be best practices guidelines as how to improve the academic integrity on campuses. Because one size does not fit all, and because the proposals are guidelines, the general discussion seemed to flow toward endorsing the motion even though there was not total agreement with every proposal with in the document. Mr. Earl suggested that endorsing the guidelines was a way to create momentum for needed reform in intercollegiate athletics, with this document as a starting point.
Senator Kim Sheehan, advertising, re-stated her concerns about the three NCAA legislative proposals contained in the document, and that endorsement of this document would give tacit approval for those regulations to be put forward to the NCAA for approval. Other senators voiced similar concerns. Although there was some sentiment that the IAC could enact many of the guidelines proposed in the document without voting to endorse it, the majority of comments indicated it was important to support the spirit of reform expressed in the best practices COIA guidelines.
With the discussion drawing to a close, President Marcus called for a vote. Motion US04/05-5 regarding endorsing the Coalition on Intercollegiate Athletics Guidelines on Academic Integrity in Intercollegiate Athletics passed by voice vote.
With no other business at hand, President Marcus adjourned the meeting at 5:00 p.m.
Secretary of the Faculty
|Web page spun on 18 April 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:email@example.com of Deady Spider Enterprises|