Minutes of the University Senate Meetings May 9, 2007

 

 

Present: H. Briston, S. Brownmiller, C. Cherry, M. Chong*, S. Cohen, M. Dennis, C. Ellis, A. Emami, P. Gilkey, O. Guerra, R. Irvin, P. Lambert, L. LaTour, P. Lu, B. Malle, K. McPherson, T. Minner, C. Minson, J. Newton, D. Olson, V. Ostrik, M. Pangburn, A. Papailiou, G. Psaki, P. Rounds, G. Sayre, A. Schulz, A. Sherrick, J. Sneirson, N. Tublitz, J. Wagenknecht, (*non-voting)

 

Excused: C. Bengston, A. Mathas, N. Fujii, J. Stolet

 

Absent: C.A. Bassett, G. Berk, A. Coles-Bjerre, J. Daniels, A. Djiffack, S. Gary, N. Gulley, S. Holmberg*, J. Hurwit, L. Karim, Corlea (Sue) Martinez*, K. Mourfy, C. Parsons, F. Pyle, L. Richardson, K. Wagle

 

 

CALL TO ORDER

 

The regular meeting of the University Senate was called to order at 3:07 p.m. by Senate President W. Andrew Marcus.  President Marcus noted that the meeting has a full agenda and asked senators to stay a bit later if the meeting runs beyond the usual 5:00 p.m. adjournment time.

 

 

APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES

 

Minutes of the April 11, 2007 University Senate meeting were approved as distributed.

 

 

STATE OF THE UNIVERSITY

 

Remarks from University President Dave Frohmayer.  President Frohnmayer spoke on three issues: campus security, the budget, and charitable matters.  The president addressed campus security issues in the wake of the recent horrifying events at Virginia Tech University where 32 students and faculty were shot and killed by a disturbed student who also killed himself.  President Frohnmayer said the university has received inquiries about the most effective way to deal with behavior of people who might pose the kind of campus threat experienced by Virginia Tech.  The president assured everyone that resources exist on campus for consultation regarding such situations and there are other trained professionals ready to come to our assistance to deal with threatening situations.  He urged everyone to be alert to unusual situations and seek assistance.  The topic has received serious attention and discussion in the Leadership Council.  President Frohnmayer acknowledged Vice President for Finance and Administration Frances Dyke and her colleagues for dealing with campus threats – even those that turn out to be hoaxes – in the most serious and professional way possible.  The president assured all that the university will do its very best to try to improve procedures where there appear to be defects, and asked each senator to be watchers to see if there are gaps in our capacity to deal with anything that might threaten the security or health of those on our campus.

 

Next, the president commented that the budget is still in the hands of the legislature.  After beginning the session with a good governor’s budget relative to recent years, then weathering a disappointing budget from the co-chairs of the Ways and Means Committee, there has been a heartening response from individual legislators and others to restored many of the co-chairs’ budget cuts.  He pointed out two major concerns: $35 million shortfall from the governor’s budget, which may be partially restored, and Phase II of the Integrated Science building, for which we have $20 million in matching grants and hope to receive $30 million in bonding authority; this priority is still being considered.

 

The third issue the president spoke about was the welfare of the faculty.  He indicated that Provost Brady would comment later about the tenure and promotion process, and on the charitable giving front, President Frohnmayer reported that Campaign Oregon is on track for anticipated philanthropic activity.  He also commented that he and the provost have initiated a project to systematically review faculty office spaces for renovation on a regular basis.  The president noted that Monday, May 14^th is University of Oregon Day in Salem at the legislative assembly, and encouraged everybody who can to free their time to be available in Salem for conversations with legislators.  Lastly, President Frohnmayer reported that the National Bone Marrow Donor Program will be on campus in the next few days; persons willing to be part of the donor registry can be easily tested (by mouth swab) for suitability as a potential bone marrow donor for individuals in need of such life-saving procedures.

 

Remarks from Provost Linda Brady.  Provost Brady began her remarks by acknowledging Professor Dave Johnson, chemistry, co-founder of ONAMI (Oregon Nanoscience and Microtechnologies Institute) who is the first UO faculty member appointed to the Rosaria P. Haugland Foundation Chair in Pure and Applied Chemistry, which recognizes a nationally significant UO researcher whose work helps to bridge academia and industry.  In addition, the provost recognized Professor Helen Neville, psychology, for her election as a new Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences.  As director of the Center for Cognitive Neuroscience, Professor Neville’s research focuses on understanding neural systems that mediate human perception and cognition, and the role of experience in the development of these systems.  She is currently working on intervention strategies to improve cognitive function in children whose intellectual environment is deprived.

 

Next, Provost Brady provided an update on the work of the Budget Task Force, which has been meeting regularly to look at the current budget model and make recommendations about adjustments to the model.  Lundquist College of Business Dean Jim Bean and Vice President Frances Dyke co-chaired the group.  Vice President Dyke and her staff will meet individually with the deans and answer specific questions with respect to their budget situations.  Base budgets for 2008 -09 will be adjusted according to the model after its final review with the deans and discussion with Senate Budget Committee and other leadership groups on campus.  The new model will distribution tuition revenues to schools and colleges based on majors, degrees, and student credit hours generated.  The new model does not mean more funding is available; rather, the model will provide a means to enhance the university’s ability to provide funding consistent with our objectives.  The new model will provide transparency to enable deans and department heads to understand impacts of their decisions within their units.

 

Lastly, the provost noted she is continuing to move forward on promotion and tenure cases, commenting that the process is a wonderful way to get to know the work of the faculty.  Announcements on tenure and promotion decisions will be made early in June.

 

 

REPORTS

 

Senate Budget Committee (SBC) Report.  SBC chairman David Frank, Honors College, explained that the SBC is charged to work with the administration concerning issues related to budget policy.  Mr. Frank spoke first regarding the White Paper (on faculty salaries) implementation progress.  In a distributed handout Mr. Frank drew attention to UO tenure related faculty salaries when compared with the eight standard comparator institutions’ faculty salaries and total compensation (which includes benefits paid by the institution).  UO full professors’ salaries are 81.2% of the comparators, associate professors at 83.6%, and assistant professors at 91.3%, reflecting modest gains.  Mr. Frank went on to say that linking salaries to academic quality is a themed echoed not only by Provost Brady but in a number of editorials throughout the state this past year.  When paid benefits are included in the totals, average compensation across all professorial ranks is at 95.6% of our comparators.  Although some progress has been made, Mr. Frank commented that the UO still has a way to go to achieve parity.  He further remarked that the SBC need to study the relation between benefits and salary.  There has been some talk in the state suggesting the transfer of some funds from benefits to salaries.  He indicated that the UO needs to be diligent in following such conversations to be certain that money for salaries is not diverted elsewhere.

 

Another SBC agenda item was to look at salary compression and inversion, and to develop an approach to rectify inequities.  Data has been provided to deans and department heads to begin addressing vertical equity issues in departments where well performing faculty fall short of mean salaries in their departments.  A fourth SBC objective was to keep an eye on the proposed changes to the retirement system, which resulted in a letter expressing UO faculty concerns, followed by the formation of an OUS advisory committee (with Joe Stone, economics, and Larry Dann, finance, as UO representatives).  Finally, the SBC is pursing the issue of the internal budget model framework and expects to engage in fruitful conversation with Provost Brady’s Budget Task Force, mentioned earlier.  Mr. Frank indicated that the SBC will continue to pursue these agenda items in to next year.  (See http://www.uoregon.edu/~uosenate/dirsen067/Salary%20Comparisons1996-20.htm for recent salary comparison data and http://www.uoregon.edu/~uosenate/dirsen067/SBC0607FinalReport.html for the full report.)

 

OUS Advisory Committee on Retirement Plan Changes.  Mr. Larry Dann, finance, reported on the new Optional Retirement Plan (ORP) and tax deferred investment (TDI) retirement options coming in fall 2007.  He indicated that the plan had consensus from all the OUS university representatives, and the new plan will come on stream in fall 2007.  The basic features are that vendors are consolidated but with expanded choices.  Additionally, there will be enhanced individual, group, and online education services. The investment plan is designed to work for all types of investors – novice to expert – with different investment comfort levels, flexibility, ease and choice.  Mr. Dann noted there is a spectrum of attractive choices, low fees/costs, which retained widely valued incumbent selections.  TIAA/CREF and VALIC investment options will remain for current participants.  He also commented that it is important for everyone to pay close attention to ORP and TDI information as it becomes available.  Explanatory letters will be mailed to current participants in May or June 2007, and no choices will have to be made prior to fall.  Mr. Dann further noted that the advisory committee members thought the plan was a great improvement over options currently in place.  

 

Mr. Dann explained that meetings will be set up during the fall term to explain choices, and OUS has a web site set to provide additional information (see http://www.ous.edu/about/redesign/).  The open enrollment period is October 1^st to November 10^th, and by December 1, 2007 all changes are scheduled to take place.  Mr. Dann then reviewed some of the various plan options available to individuals who select the ORP and/or participate in TDIs (for copies of the handout of Mr. Dann’s presentation, see http://www.uoregon.edu/~uosenate/dirsen067/LarryDann9May07.pdf).  As a point of clarification, Mr. Dann reminded everyone that PERS and IAP are the state retirement programs, and that what he was describing has to do with the OUS alternative retirement plan (the ORP) and/or people who choose to participate in tax-deferred investment programs; this is not about PERS or IAP.  Mr. Joe Stone, economics, who also served on the advisory committee, added that there are many issues related to the retirement contribution rates that this committee did not address and which is a statewide issue.  President Marcus thanked professors Dann and Stone for their valuable efforts and contributions toward a plan that was vastly improved from the initial proposal.  He noted that the pressures exerted on OUS by our faculty and campus leadership on this change in retirement options resulted in a better plan for faculty and staff ORP and TDI participants on all the OUS campuses.  

 

Senate Committee on Academic Excellence Report.  Committee chairman Nathan Tublitz, biology, began his report with a brief background of the committee’s history.  He indicated that the committee was initiated first as an ad hoc committee in spring 2005 and was made a permanent senate committee in fall 2006, arising from concerns faculty have regarding academic quality at the UO and our national stature.  He reported that over the past year the committee has had numerous meetings and conversations, including some with Provost Brady, and that as a result, several papers were developed.  One paper outlined five areas that the committee felt needed to be addressed by the university, which included increasing faculty compensation, upgrading the undergraduate experience, improving undergraduate quality, developing stronger graduate programs, and developing interdisciplinary research and teaching initiatives (see http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~uosenate/dirsen067/AECissuelist30Nov06.pdf).  A number of specific objectives were listed under each of these areas.  Additionally, another paper dealt with strategies for increasing faculty compensation, including setting aside a significant portion of income from fundraising efforts in an endowment fund for four consecutive years after the current campaign is terminated (see http://www.uoregon.edu/~uosenate/dirsen067/AECCampaign30Nov06.pdf).  Most recently, the committee developed a paper with six goals for improving academic quality that can be used to jump start the conversations with Provost Brady’s Academic Excellence Advisory Council.  These goals are (1) to increase faculty salaries, (2) decrease student teacher ratios, (3) increase the number of graduate students, (4) increase the percentage of full time faculty, (5) reverse the decline in the percent of university expenditures going to instruction, and (6) increase scholarships and academic support for low income students.  In a handout provided, Senator Tublitz explained data supporting the rationale for each goal and proposed yearly targets to meet the goals over a five year period (see http://www.uoregon.edu/~uosenate/dirsen067/AECGoalsMay07.pdf).  He concluded his remarks suggesting that the chair of the Senate Academic Excellence Committee and Provost Brady report yearly progress on these goals at the May senate meetings.  During a brief comment session that followed, the notion of converting to a semester system was posited as a means of generating some savings that could be applied to these goals, and as a teaching mode preferred by faculty.

 

Joint Senate/Academic Affairs Committee on Course Evaluations Report.  Committee chairperson Associate Dean Pricilla Southwell, political science, urged senators to read the committee’s report thoroughly (provided as a handout and posted on the web at http://www.uoregon.edu/~uosenate/dirsen067/JSAACSE7May07.html).  She highlighted the report saying that the committee recommended an increase from 4 to 10 required questions, which represents much of the committee’s debate the past few months.  Discussion on the recommendations and required questions content should continue over the course of the 2007-08 academic year – the intent is to move forward and generate broad discussion across campus.  Vice Provost Russ Tomlin commented that he was very pleased with the collaborative effort and hoped it would set a direction for more collaborative implementation effort with his office in the future.  Dean Southwell further noted that as a separate matter the process of moving to on-line evaluations (using questions currently in place) is well underway with implementation expected in fall 2007.   

 

President Marcus re-emphasized the importance of generating wide discussion about the recommendations in every department and academic unit.  Vice President Gordon Sayre clarified that it will be important to have a sense of how the mechanics of the on-line evaluation process goes by next January.  He noted that there will be evaluation questions unique to each department – not all evaluation forms will be the same, so departments need to look at the forms and suggest revisions.  Also, another task force will be needed to proceed in winter and spring of 2008. 

 

Intercollegiate Athletics Committee (IAC) Report.  Because he reported last term on a number of issues (see http://www.uoregon.edu/~icac/dirIAC/IACReport2006-2007.html), and the scheduling of football with be discussed later in the meeting, IAC chairman Jim Isenberg focused his comments on activities of the past several months.  Most of the energies of the IAC have been devoted to working and communicating with the new athletic department administration.  So far, the committee has been quite pleased with the openness of the new athletics director and with his strong interest in addressing the academic side of the student athlete experience.  Mr. Isenberg remarked that one issue that has arisen is the graduation reports which are used by the NCAA as a monitor of student athletes’ academic success.  Some of the early reports for the UO were not so good, although more recent reports show some improvement.  Finally, Mr. Isenberg  noted that the IAC now has a website that includes all the minutes from past meetings of the IAC as well as various senate and assembly legislation.

 

Preliminary Spring 2007 Curriculum Report.  Committee on Courses Chairman Paul Engelking noted several corrections to the report, all of which were posted on the web page.  ART 251 and 252 have the wrong subject code: it will be corrected to ARTD 251 and 252.  MSU 443/543 Digital Audio and Sound Design and MUS444/544 Interactive Media Performance have been moved from the approved section to the pending section; the UOCC will review these courses again in fall term 2007.  And ANTH 4/566 Primate Feeding and Nutrition, and ANTH4/549 Cultural Resource Management will be removed from the dropped courses list.  The report, as amended, was passed unanimously by voice vote (see http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~uosenate/dirsen067/FinCurRptS07.html for final report).  Lastly, Mr. Engelking publicly thanked and acknowledged Ms. Linda Adkins, who although she had moved to a different position in the university during the past year, continued her excellent organizational support for the Committee on Courses, in effect doing double duty.  Mr. Engelking expressed his and the committee’s sincere and deep appreciation for her efforts throughout the past year.  President Marcus added his appreciation of Ms. Adkin’s contributions to the committee’s work as well; both remarks brought a warm round of applause for Ms. Adkins.   

 

 

ANNOUNCEMENT AND COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE FLOOR

 

Several announcements came from the senate floor.  Mr. Matthew Dennis, history, gave notice of a resolution to endorse a project on global warming called Focus the Nation.  The resolution will ask the University Senate to endorse organizing a symposium on global warming on or about January 31, 2008.  The resolution will come forward at the October 2007 meeting.

 

Secretary Steigelman reminded everyone that the senate’s organizational meeting will be in the Knight Library Browsing Room on May 23, 2007.  The Westling Award will be formally presented and the senate vice president for 2007-08 elected.  Current and newly elected members of the 2007-08 senate are encouraged to attend.

 

Senator Ashley Sherrick, ASUO, gave notice of a motion concerning affordable textbooks. Senator Peter Gilkey, mathematics, reminded everyone that the UO lobby day in Salem is Monday, May 14^th.  People are invited to participate on their on time as private citizens.

 

Vice President Gordon Sayre, who also chairs the Committee on Committees that determines the Wayne Westling Award winner, announced that Professor Suzanne Clark, English, is the Westling Award recipient for 2007.  As noted previously, the award will be officially awarded at the organizational meeting, followed by a reception honoring Ms. Clark and new senate members.  

 

Notice of motion was given by Mr. Bill Harbaugh, economics, concerning a request that Office of Affirmative Action update its web page including the Affirmative Action Plan and fully document its underrepresented minority recruitment plan.

 

 

NEW BUSINESS

 

Motion to award degrees.  Mr. Ken Calhoun, chair of the Academic Requirements Committee, made the following motion to confer academic degrees:

 

The University Senate of the University of Oregon recommends that the Oregon State Board of Higher Education confer upon the persons whose names are included in the Official Degree List, as compiled and certified by the University Registrar for the academic year 2006-2007 and Summer Session 2007, the degree for which they have completed all requirements.

 

The motion passed unanimously by voice vote.

 

Motion to recommend 2007/8 academic year committee appointments.  Vice President Sayre reported the recommended appointments for university standing committees for 2007-08 (see http://www.uoregon.edu/~uosenate/dirsen067/CoCMay07.html for complete list).  Vice President Sayre also noted there was a revised charge for the Environmental Issues committee.  Further, the vice president noted the committee’s appreciation for all who have agreed to serve on the various committees.  The motion to endorse the committee’s recommended appointments passed unanimously by voice vote.  Vice President Sayre noted that annual reports from each of the standing committees should be filed with Secretary Steigelman.

 

Motion US06/07-15 regarding methods and procedures for awarding degrees to persons ordered evacuated to internment camps in 1942.  Senator Peter Gilkey, mathematics, made the following motion:

Notwithstanding any other legislation,

(1) The University Senate of the University of Oregon directs the Distinguished Service Award Committee to implement HB 2823 (2007), which grants the University of Oregon authority to award an honorary degree to a person who was a student at the University of Oregon in 1942 and who was ordered to an internment camp, as follows:

a. The Committee shall seek and screen requests for degrees, ask for more information about the person(s) in question, and investigate, to its satisfaction, that the person(s) meet the criteria of HB 2823.

b. It is the responsibility of the Committee to judge each request and to determine whether it is appropriate to forward the person's name to the University Senate for consideration.

c. The Committee shall do all of its work in the strictest of confidence.

d. The University Senate, in Executive Session, shall discuss the case(s) presented by the Committee. Members of the Committee shall make the presentations in support of each person separately.

e. The University Senators shall discuss, ask questions of the presenters from the Committee if necessary, and shall vote separately on each person. A vote of two-thirds is necessary for the case to be approved.

f. The President of the University Senate shall formally inform the President of the University of Oregon only of those persons receiving Senate approval. Cases failing to get the two-thirds vote shall not be forwarded to the University President. All documentation on successful cases shall be turned over to the University President by the President of the University Senate.

g. The Distinguished Service Award Committee will review cases periodically and expeditiously.

h. If the President of the University endorses the decision(s) of the University Senate, the President shall take whatever additional actions that are necessary to implement the award(s) appropriately.

i. The chair of the Distinguished Service Award Committee shall notify the President of the University concerning requests denied either by the DSA or by the Senate, and the President shall take what action the President feels appropriate.

(2) The Distinguished Service Award Committee may, in consultation with the Academic Requirements Committee, with the Independent Study Program, and with other appropriate University Committees, recommend instead the award of an academic rather than an honorary degree to a person who was a student at the University of Oregon in 1942 and who was ordered to an internment camp. In such a case, the processes outlined in (1) a-i shall be followed.

(3) Effective date: This legislation shall take effect if HB2823 is enacted into law during 2007.

Senator Gilkey spoke to the motion saying that it arises out of history and results from House Bill 2823 passed by the Oregon state legislature earlier this year.  That bill allows the University of Oregon to award a post-secondary degree to a person, or on behalf of a deceased person, who was a student at the university in 1942 and who did not graduate from the institution because the person was ordered evacuated to an internment camp.  There are policies in place (see OUS IMD 2.021) to award honorary degrees that the university has used infrequently (only five time since World War II).  The legislation passed in HB 2823 permits the university to give honorary degrees to a number of students under specific circumstances, but the UO needs legislation to implement this action.  Consequently, after consulting widely across campus, Motion US06/07-15 provides such procedures for implementation.  In essence, the motion took the legislation previously used for honorary degrees and adapted it for the current needs.  The motion gives the Distinguished Service Award Committee (DSAC) the authority to seek out individuals who qualify, screen the relevant information, and bring the names to the senate for approval in the same way they have been done for previous honorary degrees.  The DSAC is also given the authority to consider awarding regular academic degrees after consulting appropriate academic committees.

 

Senator Athan Papailiou, ASUO, spoke in support of the motion with the following statement. “In examining the University of Oregon’s historical timeline one finds several important moments since the establishment of this institution -- times of significant achievement and impact, ranging from the creation of various schools and academic departments to the most recent launch of Campaign Oregon.  Today, before this body is an opportunity to create another segment on the University timeline through the support and passage of this resolution, US06/07-15.  While this resolution in itself is just the beginning -- the need for a search committee and award-giving infrastructure still exists -- the passage of this resolution creates the necessary dialogue and commitment from this University to the students who were unable to complete their post- secondary education at this institution.  For the individuals who were just a few classes - or even a handful of credits - shy of graduation, the passage of this resolution provides the overdue recognition from the University of Oregon to the individuals whose special circumstances merit a college degree. As a current undergraduate student, I am honored that this bill will give others who attended this University the opportunity to call U of O their true alma mater. It is my sincere hope that this resolution can have the unanimous support of this body."

 

Before opening the floor for discussion, President Marcus, commented that the wording of the motion was very carefully crafted to account for the HB2823 legislation as well as university legislation, and he hoped that any amendments forthcoming be considered with that admonition.  Senator Bertram Malle, psychology, asked how one would determine whether an honorary or academic degree should be awarded, to which Senator Gilkey replied that the DSAC would make that determination after doing the research and consulting with the appropriate academic committees.  In all cases, the recommendations would come before the senate for approval.  President Frohnmayer added that the DSAC typically has awarded honorary doctorate degrees, but in the cases that will be under consideration, the degrees may well be honorary bachelor and master’s degrees, not necessarily doctorates.  Another senator asked how many individuals might be affected, to which Senator Gilkey conjectured as few as eight or as many as 23 former students may be eligible, some of whom are deceased.

 

The question was called by Senator Tublitz, and passed by voice vote.  Motion US06/07-15 regarding methods and procedures for awarding degrees to persons ordered evacuated to internment camps in 1942 was brought to a vote and passed unanimously by voice vote.  President Marcus spoke movingly about this motion and he thanked those involved with preparing the ground work for the motion his appreciation. 

 

Resolution US06/07-14 regarding scheduling restrictions for football games during weekdays and final exams period.  Senator Tublitz put the following resolution on the floor for discussion: 

Resolved that,

The University Senate reiterates the principle, originally stated and approved in two previous Senate resolutions (US00/01-4 and US06/07-12), that the academic calendar shall be the primary consideration in scheduling athletic events.

Specifically, the University Senate resolves that football games shall not be scheduled on the weekend between dead and final exam weeks.

Furthermore, football games shall not be scheduled on weekdays during fall term including exam week unless approved in advance by the Intercollegiate Athletic Committee, the Faculty Advisory Council and the Senate Executive Committee.

 

Speaking to the resolution, Senator Tublitz commented that it began with the principle that the academic calendar shall be primary consideration in scheduling academic events.  The resolution arises out of the recent rescheduling of next year’s Civil War football game with Oregon State University to the Saturday between Dead Week and Exam Week (December 1, 2007), and another game rescheduled from a Saturday to a Thursday night.  Senator Tublitz indicated both issues are addressed in the resolution, and noted that the current resolution follows two others previously passed by the senate (see US00/01-4 and US06/07-12) that apparently were not followed.  He commented that the University Senate, along with 55 other Division I schools, is a member of the Coalition on Intercollegiate Athletics (COIA) and that one of the principles that group hopes member schools will adopt is a restriction on scheduling athletic competitions during final exams periods on their campuses.  Senator Tublitz clearly stated that the issue is not meant to pit academics against athletics, saying that many in the senate are supportive of athletics on this campus and that the athletics department is supportive of high academic standards for student athletes.  Rather, this resolution attempts to focus attention on what the priorities must be.  Senator Tublitz referred to the university’s mission statement as an example of the university’s values and priorities.  He concluded his remarks saying that he felt the university’s educational priorities have slipped because we have not been making decisions that will improve our academic and educational environment, and that decisions should not be made solely on the basis of what is best financially for any one department. 

 

The resolution was opened for discussion.  Senator Gilkey asked if the Faculty Advisory Council (FAC) is included in the list of reviewers would that make the FAC a decision making body and thus be subject to the open meetings law.  President Frohnmayer opined that with respect to the provisions in the resolution, the FAC would be subject to the open meetings law (e.g., prior notice, recorded votes, etc.).  Senator Tublitz agreed with the interpretation, but added that it would only apply to this particular aspect of football scheduling, and if that means the FAC has an open meeting once a year, then so be it.

 

Discussion then moved on to issue of scheduling athletic games during weekdays.  Senator Malle commented that if he extended the resolution’s logic, it would mean we should not schedule any basketball games during the week either, which would exclude the university from NCAA competitions.  Senator Tublitz replied that there are some things under our control and some things that are not.  Basketball would be difficult to schedule without changes at the Division level.  The current resolution speaks only to football during the fall term, and is meant to stop the slippage of football into scheduling that occurs during weekdays or exam periods.  It affects not only the athletes, but many of the students.  Athletics Director Pat Kilkenney noted that the Thursday competition was mandated by the conference, so the university does not have a choice about it.  Second, he has apprehension about legislation that does not allow him to make prudent decisions in finding balance between athletics and academics.  He is cognizant of what the charge is for athletics and academics.  It is difficult for us to operate in world of television and not to pay attention to opportunities to play a football game on the Saturday before Exam Week or on a Thursday, nor to ignore the financial implications.  He continued that the Intercollegiate Athletics Committee did spend a fair amount of time discussing this scheduling change, and concerns were raised.  He noted the IAC weighed what was trying to be accomplished at the university and balanced that with their advice and comments regarding scheduling. 

 

Senator Ali Emami, finance, commented that he didn’t see the relation between academic issues and constraining students not to watch or attend a football game during before the exam period.  Students can watch other games on TV, for example.  Senator Tublitz replied that we cannot tell students how to spend their time, but we can set an example by not having an event that generates activities and parties that would possibly impair students’ ability to perform at their best during final exams.  He opined that we have a duty to our students to ensure they perform at their highest level.  Further, he suggested that we have a responsibility to model good decision making ; what does it say when we make decisions that allow the potential of financial benefit to the athletics department to go ahead of the academic progress of our students.  

 

Mr. Brad Shelton, mathematics, next commented that based on scheduling control the PAC-10 has regarding Thursday night games, and because it is not in our best interest to leave the PAC-10, the third paragraph sets up an unreasonable governance structure having three separate bodies weigh in on a fairly straightforward issue.  He continued that it is also problematic for the FAC to be potentially subject to open meeting laws, and the FAC is supposed to be confidential and advisory.  He concluded saying that although he personally was opposed to weekday football games, he does not believe this is the way to fix the problem.  Rather, he suggested that Senator Tublitz should turn his attention on the PAC-10 to fix the problem.  Accordingly, Mr. Shelton moved to strike the entire third paragraph, beginning, “Furthermore, football games shall not be scheduled … and the Senate Executive Committee.”  The motion to amend was seconded and discussion on the amendment ensued.  Senator Christian Cherry, dance, spoke in favor of the amendment saying the third paragraph seemed adversarial and questioned the credibility of the IAC.  Senator Tublitz replied that when the IAC met to discuss the weekday games, then Athletics Director Bill Moos indicated that it was not mandated  by the PAC-10.  Television company ESPN wanted the PAC-10 to sign a contract that included Thursday night games, but the PAC-10 had not at that point done so; thus switching a game to Thursday night was optional.  Senator Tublitz stated that our participation in a Thursday night game was voluntary, and that was why the need for the three committees weighing in on the decision. 

 

Senator Malle spoke in favor of the amendment saying that if and when the PAC-10 does sign the contract problems would arise with this legislation.  Senator Matthew Dennis, history, spoke against the amendment.  He commented that the third paragraph still allows a Thursday night game but requires a process.  He said that all the listed bodies could easily be assembled.  He further stated that while he recognizes the mandate of the athletics director to adequately fund athletics programs, as a faculty member he does not feel football games should be scheduled during exams or during the weekdays.  He noted that President Frohnmayer still has the ultimate decision and can put aside this legislation and make the scheduling decision.  Lastly, Senator Dennis said it was very important that we put academic quality of the university first. 

 

The question regarding the amendment was called.  A voice vote to strike the third paragraph of the resolution was taken but inconclusive, thus and hand count was made, indicating 19 in favor of striking the third paragraph from the resolution, and 10 opposed.  Thus, the third paragraph was stricken for the resolution. 

 

Discussion again moved to the main resolution.  Senator Malle was opposed to the resolution.  He expressed concern that there actually would be an impact on student performances and that he does not see evidence of such an impact.  If there is such evidence, it should be brought forward to the PAC-10.  Next, a member of the student senate was recognized by President Marcus.  She appreciated the faculty’s concerns but said that decisions to attend football games, knowing what impact there may be on their academic responsibilities, can safely be left to students.  Senator Nathan Gully, ASUO, agreed that students are adults, but having games during these time periods prioritizes athletics inappropriately, so he was in favor of the resolution.  Ms. Suzanne Clark spoke in opposition to the resolution saying that the resolution passed last March is more specific than this resolution and has not had a chance to work.  She was concerned about the process.  Rather than the senate mandating certain kinds of scheduling, her preference was to have a sound consultative process that touched on the strong sentiments of faculty with concerns, such as what exists in the current legislation, than to put the president in a position of having to go against mandated legislation in his ultimate decision-making.  The consultation process permits enough provocation to force the president to confront our expressed concerns and desires.

 

Senator Emami spoke in opposition to the motion, saying that if our students’ academic performance was dependent on a one night game, we are not doing our jobs.  Senator Chris Minson, human physiology, also spoke against the motion saying that watching football games and participating in the various activities surrounding them is a choice student have to make that is, like many other choices, part of their educational experience at the university.  President Frohnmayer, who rarely speaks on motions in the senate, spoke in opposition to the motion saying that the resolution has implications of how executive authority would be exercised.  He did not see any major event that has happened in the two months since the previous resolution on the topic was passed.  That resolution called for the broadest possible consultation to occur.  Further, the president said that the present resolution under consideration is diametrically opposed to the action taken by the senate two months ago.  He asked senators to ask themselves, what has happened to cause a lack of confidence in the consultative process?  The president further suggested that the fiscal impact statement provided was at best opaque.  He opined that we need to worry about university finances collectively and consultatively.  Lastly, he noted that although he could override senate legislation, it would be an extraordinary act, not taken lightly.  His hope is that the senate would not pass legislation that would put the president in such a position that when he makes a decision that he feels is in the best interest of the university, that decision would require overriding senate legislation  In a final statement of support for his resolution, Senator Tublitz replied that he was pleased that the senate had this discussion.  He further commented that President Frohnmayer ignored the legislation passed in April 2001, thus this resolution reaffirms that previous legislation more specifically in an attempt to make sure that our academic standards have priority.

 

The question was called.  A voice vote on the resolution was inconclusive, thus a hand vote showed 7 in favor of the resolution and 22 opposed.  Resolution US06/07-14 regarding the scheduling restrictions for football games fall term, as amended, was defeated. 

 

ADJOURNMENT

 

With no other business, the final regular meeting of the 2006-07 academic year was adjourned at 5:20 p.m. 

 

 

Gwen Steigelman

Secretary