Organizational Meeting of the University Senate May 25, 2005
Present: S. Brownmiller, , S. Cohen, M. Dennis, A. Emami, N. Fuji, S. Gary, S. Holmberg, A. Hornof, R. Irvin, J. Jablonski, L. Karim, P. Keyes, L. LaTour, W. A. Marcus, P. Lu, K. McPherson, C. Minson, L. Nelson, J. Newton, M. Pangburn, G. Psaki, L. Richardson, P. Rounds, E. Singer, J. Sneirson, P. Swangard, N. Tublitz, J. Wagenknecht
Excused: E. Chan, C. Cherry, A. Djiffack, D. Eisert, C. Ellis, L. Feldman, L. Freinkel, H. Lin, J. Hurwit, S. Maier, A. Mathas, C. McNelly, L. Moses, V. Ostrik, G. Sayre, E. Scott, K. Sheehan, S. Simmons, J. Stolet, K. Wagle
CALL TO ORDER
Approval of the Minutes
Approval of the minutes from May 11, 2005 senate meeting was deferred until the first senate meeting of the fall term.
Standing and Administrative Committee Reports
Report from the Intercollegiate Athletics Committee (IAC). IAC chairman Jim Isenberg, mathematics, made a brief report on the topics discussed in the IAC during the past year (see http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~uosenate/dirsen045/US045-2.html for recent legislation requiring this senate report). Mr. Isenberg noted that the IAC has had a productive year in responding to new policies recommended in the athletics task force report. Issues discussed by the committee included: offensive mascots (pink star), the Coalition of Intercollegiate Athletics (COIA), new lines of communication between the Athletic Department and the rest of campus (the athletics director now reports directly to the president), Academic Services for Student Athletes, the new Academic Progress Report System, improving communication with faculty regarding athletics matters, the SOAR program (which integrates student athletes into the community for charitable events), the basketball arena project, and the new track and field coach. Mr. Isenberg commented positively on a developing mutual respect between the IAC and the athletics department, as well as more effective use of the IAC by the administration.
During a question and answer session a question regarding the status of the new basketball arena was asked. University President Dave Frohnmayer clarified that there is no arena project, currently. There is hope for a new arena and it is included in the comprehensive campaign. The president continued that MacArthur court must be replaced soon, but it would not be done by state funds; the UO will need substantial donations for it to happen. If such donor commitments were made, the UO would move quickly to take advantage of lower costs for construction. He noted that the Williams Bakery site has been purchased. If a decision on the arena needs to be made, the senate would be contacted, even during the summer months. He also remarked that there is neither benefit nor intent to hide any information regarding a new arena; he wants the senate to endorse this project.
Senate President Marcus pointed out that the Campus Planning Committee, which has two senate members, will be looking at any new construction projects, even those that are privately funded; so now there is a two-step process in place that had not been in place in the past. He also emphasized that this does not mean the Campus Planning Committee would have the authority to approve or disapprove a project, but it will provide two different stages of project awareness and input early on.
Presentation of the Wayne Westling Award for University Service and Leadership. Former Senate President Nathan Tublitz presented the Wayne Westling Award to this year’s recipient Jim Earl, English. He noted that the senate makes this award based on the recipient’s demonstrated outstanding and long-term commitment to the UO through service and leadership. Mr. Tublitz congratulated Mr. Earl, saying he embodied many of the same traits and attributes of former law professor and colleague Wayne Westling, for whom the award is named. Mr. Earl has served the university on numerous committees, as senate president, and as a national figure for reform in collegiate athletics. In accepting the award, Mr. Earl commented that university service can be viewed as a burden, but the minute he decided to do it, it became a pleasure. He thanked the senate for the honor of accepting the award. (See http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~uosenate/WestlingAward.html for more about the award.)
RECOGNITION OF CONTRIBUTIONS BY VICE PRESIDENT FOR ADMINISTRATION DAN WILLIAMS.
Mr. Earl, English, recognized Vice President Dan Williams’ many years at the university, including being ASUO president while an undergraduate at the UO. In lauding Mr. Williams’ contributions and management style, Mr. Earl also commented that Dan Williams was “a fount of gentle wisdom.” Mr. Earl remarked about Mr. Williams spending some retirement time consulting for the Athletics Department, saying that his balanced view of athletics, as well as his ethical and self-confident modesty, embodies the perfect school spirit for our day. Mr. Earl thanked Mr. Williams for his many years of excellent service and congratulated him on his much deserved retirement.
INTRODUCTION AND BRIEF ORIENTATION OF NEWLY ELECTED SENATORS-SENATE.
President Marcus asked the newly elected senators to rise as they were introduced and welcomed them all to the senate. The secretary provided a brief overview of the senate’s operational procedures as well as the various materials available through links to the senate’s web page. Additionally, she noted that senators are automatically members of a closed senate listserv. (See http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~uosenate/dirsen056/memsen056.html for full list of members.)
REMARKS FROM OUTGOING SENATE PRESIDENT W. ANDREW MARCUS
President Marcus began his final remarks by commenting on the past year. He thanked everyone who made this year a remarkable one, and acknowledged the contributions of the secretary, Parliamentarian Paul Simonds, members of the Senate Executive Committee, previous senate presidents, Ms. Linda Adkins who assists with the minutes, and the support of his wife, Lisa. He also commented on the tremendous amount of work done through the 27 standing committees of the university, and outlined the senate’s accomplishments for 2004-05, which included 9 legislative motions that were evaluated, modified, and passed during the year. He noted that the Oregon Transfer Module moved through the system very quickly due to the extraordinary efforts of the Interinstitutional Faculty Senate, lead by UO representative Peter Gilkey. In contrast, the development of guidelines for best practices and employment management regarding non-tenure-related instructional faculty has taken five years of hard work to reach present state, which is viewed by all as a great success although there is still work ahead. President Marcus praised the efficiency of the senate this year, noting that a large amount of the work on all motions is done in the early planning stages, as they are crafted and re-crafted, before they come before the senate for floor debate and action. The motion regarding the “Y” grade was a good example this kind of cooperative effort, as the various committees and councils, working with the registrar and the senate rules committee, formulated an acceptable motion that improved and clarified use of the Y grade. President Marcus also spoke about the controversy created by release of the draft Diversity Plan, suggesting that collaborative work with the senate, its ad hoc committee, and the diversity plan’s drafting and advisory members will yield a shared solution on this topic.
President Marcus reminded the new senators of their important role in shared governance, emphasizing the collaboration and cooperation necessary to achieve “buy in” from all concerned parties. He noted that there will be challenging issues ahead, and by working together solutions are possible. Lastly, he wished them well in the year ahead.
Nomination and election of the Senate Vice President for 2005-06. President Marcus noted that Jeanne Wagenknecht, finance, had been nominated at the earlier May meeting, and asked if there were any other nominations from the floor. Hearing none, Jeanne Wagenknecht was elected vice president by unanimous voice vote.
Confirmation of 2005-2006 University Senate President Peter Keyes. President Marcus asked for and received a unanimous vote confirming Vice President Peter Keyes as the new incoming senate president for 2005-06. And as has been the custom, he handed President Keyes a gavel and a copy of Robert’s Rule of Order. President Keyes then called on University President Dave Frohnmayer, who made a few remarks praising Mr. Marcus for his service as senate president during the past year, and presented him with an Atlas of Oregon and a set of UO bookends. President Frohnmayer commented that our form of governance at the UO has endured for 128 years, and by its very mandate implores the “president and the professors” to work together in serving and governing the university. He alluded to a number of issues during the year that could have been especially explosive, but that have yielded to be dealt with sensibly through the guidance of President Marcus and the goodwill of those who serve the senate. He thanked President Marcus for his service to the university.
Newly elected Senate President Peter Keyes then made a few remarks, first thanking the senators for their support and for the mentorship that Mr. Marcus provided during the year. President Keyes briefly outlined several items that he foresees as on the agenda for the next year: upgrading the senate’s use of technology, moving forward with the diversity plan, the NTTIF recommended policy implementation, acting on Student Conduct Code revisions, issues that may arise with athletics, and perhaps the arena project if it gets on track. He noted that he hopes to improve communication of the senate with the various faculty and staff constituent groups in order for the senate to have an active agenda rather than be a purely responsive governing body. Thus, he asked the senators to talk with their colleagues about generating agenda items that concern them.
With no further ado, the new president invited everyone to the reception that followed and adjourned the meeting at 4:30 p.m.
Secretary of the Faculty
Addendum A – Text of W. Andrew Marcus remarks
Outgoing Remarks from W. Andrew Marcus
Senate President, 2004-2005
May 25, 2005
It is customary for the outgoing Senate President to thank the people who have made the functioning of the Senate possible, summarize the events of the past year, and take a brief moment to philosophize on the meaning of life – or short of such a large goal - life as we know it in the confines of the Senate chambers and our university. I hope you will indulge me as I take some time to carry on this tradition.
The inclination in giving thanks is to simply read off the names of every Senator and University Committee member, all of whom have contributed to making the Senate function over the past year. But that would leave us here for another two hours. Several people have been absolutely critical and I want to make a special point of expressing my appreciation to them.
First and foremost, as any Senate President can tell you, the post consumes a great deal of time, much of which is taken not from the day job (which must be done to keep the pay check coming), but from family. In particular and in my case, the person who has taken the large brunt of that “lost” time is my wife, Lisa, who has been amazingly supportive of my late nights, my non-existent weekends, and my moments of irritable stress. As Lisa is here, I want to publicly acknowledge her support and thank her. With regard to future university service, she has also become the biggest advocate of that old Nancy Reagan saying “Just say No!” I will continue to rely on her to keep me unfettered and free of university service – for at least another six weeks.
In the university, Gwen Steigelman, Secretary of the Senate, is my heroine of the year. It is Gwen who understands the Senate procedures and keeps we novice presidents in line to the best of her ability, always with a sense of humor and a knack for understated correction – “Well, you could do that… if you don’t mind being investigated by the State Attorney General.” Above and beyond that, Gwen has become a good friend over the year, one of the wonderful and unexpected discoveries of my time on the Senate. Thank you Gwen for being there is such a supportive role.
During meetings, Paul Simonds has been my back bone, by which I mean that I do not think I would have had the confidence to stand up here without a parliamentarian to back me up. Remember our first Senate meeting of this year when we had a motion to amend a motion that amended an amended motion? No? Good, I try to forget it too. Without Paul, I would have been at a total loss.
Linda Atkins has assiduously taken copious minutes for the Senate. That her fingers on still on her hands is testament to some inner strength that I do not possess.
To the Senate Executive Committee of Sheryl Eyster, Jon Jablonski, Peter Keyes, Ann McLucas, Carla McNelly, Lou Moses, Gina Psaki, Gwen Steigelman, Stephanie Stoll, and Nathan Tublitz I extend my thanks. You have kept me from going astray more times than I care to reveal to the Senate.
There is also a loose coalition of past-Senate Presidents, a recovery support group if you will. Although there is no formal meeting or agenda, I have gained invaluably over the year from guidance provided by Lowell Bowditch, Jim Earl, Peter Gilkey, Jeff Hurwit, Greg McLauchlan, Paul Simonds, Ann Tedards and Nathan Tublitz. Thank you all.
Finally, I have formed a wonderful friendship with Vice President Peter Keyes, whom I have relied on for insight, humor, and a New York edge that cuts right through some of the Eugenian touchy feely gobbledy gook that we are sometimes inclined to get mired in. You are fortunate to have him leading you into the year ahead.
So what is it that these individuals have helped to bring about? In the past year the Senate has evaluated, modified, and passed nine motions, not including the standard boiler plate motions such as conferral of degrees and awards, votes to approve committee memberships, and the various votes to approve course changes. These motions include:
Depending on how one parses this out, we had four motions that related to athletics (if one remembers that the arena debate sparked the changes in the planning process), three related to curriculum and grading, and five that involved changes in the governance process on campus (the Assembly and all the IAC and planning motions).
This is more motions than have been dealt with by most Senates over the last ten years, but less than some. In other words, a slightly more busy than average, but a generally ordinary year. So why bother with this listing?
In part, I want to provide this list by way of saying thank you to the Senators from 2004-2005. While the consideration of these motions may not have always been the most exhilarating experience in the world, the work these motions represent lie at the heart of how the university functions. Your willingness to engage in reviewing, altering, and voting on these motions helps keep the university responsive to changing times and needs.
The list is also a simple way to alert new Senators joining us today to the kinds of business you will be involved in. Welcome to the “party.” Heads up!
Most important to me is the final number in the list: five. Five motions related to university governance – ranging from campus planning to intercollegiate athletics to procedures for convening the Assembly.
This number represents the profound commitment of this body, its committees, and the university to shared governance. We are at our best as an institution when the tenets of this concept are adhered to and carried out. A listing of notable examples from this year include:
And this doesn’t include the remarkable work of the Student Conduct Committee; the collaboration of the Library Committee, the Senate Budget Committee and the Provost’s Office to significantly increase the base budget for the library; or the extraordinary efforts by the Interinstitutional Faculty Senate to maintain a faculty voice in the governor’s push to improve higher education – all of which have received considerable air time in the Senate this year.
For those of you who are new Senators, and for some of you who are “passing on,” there are several notable aspects of all these successes:
First, successful collaboration takes time. The shortest of these efforts – the Oregon Transfer Module – moved at university governance warp speed, meaning it took about nine months from start to finish. In contrast, the development of guidelines and concrete management practices for NTTIF, has taken five years to reach its present state, is viewed by all involved to be a success story – and still has a long way to go.
Second, the large, large, VERY LARGE majority of work takes place before a motion ever reaches the Senate floor. It is in the pre-Senate stage that motion are crafted, recrafted, and recrafted again as input pours in from all the significant stake holders. As just one example of a motion that had a relatively easy process, the Y Grade motion of this year was initiated by the Scholastic Review Committee and then had to be reviewed and modified by the Undergraduate Council, the Graduate Council, the Registar’s Office, and the Senate Rules Committee before coming to the Senate for a relatively innocuous discussion and vote. What the Senate sees on the Senate floor is just the tip of a very large process ice berg.
As an aside for those of you who are new Senators and are wondering what the Senate President does, a primary role of the Senate President is to make sure that the appropriate committees see and review a motion before it reaches the Senate. Often the Senate Executive Committee, which meets with the Senate President between Senate meetings, aids the President in routing motions and even in suggesting new wording for motions. Because the Senate Executive makes up approximately a fifth of the voting Senators, most initiators of motions are willing to accept suggestions from this body.
Third, it is my personal opinion that there is nothing more boring on earth than successful collaboration. I have felt on several occasions this year that have I attained some weird inverse of the Peter Principle, where instead of raising to my level of incompetence, I have risen to the level where my competence is perfect. For years I have wanted to be in a large lecture hall where students are engaged, upset, asking challenging questions, stomping out of the room fractiously debating the great intellectual questions of the age. For years I have railed at my inability to accomplish this level of intellectual engagement.
But this past year I have attained a strange state where I enter a lecture hall for a Senate meeting, inhabited by the people whose opinions I most care about – you - my university colleagues. Then, as I drone on, moderating the conversation, watching your eyes role up in your sockets, heads falling forward in snooze position, a light drone of pleasant snores filling the air, what do I think? Yes – this is perfect!!!! If you find yourself falling asleep in the Senate meeting, the collaborative process has worked!
I will soon be entering therapy to deal with my conflicted aspirations.
Of course, the inverse of these statements hold true. When a process is fast tracked, when it does not include key stakeholders in the university governance process, then it can be VERY exciting indeed – as I have learned over the last two weeks with the release of the Draft (I emphasize Draft) 5 Year Diversity Plan.
My assessment of all this? In the future, I choose boredom.
But I do not want to have my comments about the Diversity Plan end on that note. Once again the inclination to work collaboratively towards a shared solution has risen to the top at Oregon. The Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Diversity, whose formation was announced at the last meeting, has played a key role in facilitating a process that will move the development of a diversity plan forward in an inclusive and expeditious manner. I want to emphasize that the committee does not see its role as one of rewriting a diversity plan. Rather, it sees its mission as one of insuring inclusivity throughout the university as a new Executive Diversity Working Group develops the next version of a plan. I want to also acknowledge that President David Frohnmayer has played a central role in working with the ad hoc committee to insure that our commitment to diversity moves forward and to develop a process allows us to solicit input and guidance from throughout the university. Thank you President Frohnmayer. We all appreciate your commitment to working with the Senate on this critical issue.
Finally - my goal in reciting all these different experiences? It’s a simple message: As you look forward your careers as Senators, I hope you will remember the central and critical role of shared governance. This will not always be an easy thing to accomplish in the year ahead. You will be handed issues that do not have simple solutions or about which there is significant disagreement: can you spell ARENA? Not to mention the intricacies of the Student Conduct Code, salaries across campus, and future directions taken by the diversity initiative – all of which are likely to be on your agenda in the future.
I suspect the inclination of any of us in this frenzied and overcommitted world is to look for the quick solution to any issue that arises. At first blush, this gives the illusion of being more efficient and effective. I have learned over my time in the Senate, however, that in the long run, having buy in and cooperation is more critical than reaching an end point on paper. As Senators, it will be up to you to insure that our tradition of shared governance continues through the contribution of your time, of your intellect, and of your good will.
I wish you the best of luck on your tasks in the year ahead. Thank you.
|Web page spun on 04 October 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|