Minutes of the University Senate Meeting December 3, 2008

 

 

Present: C. Bengtson, L-S Chou, E. Herman, J. Hunter, J. Hurwit, M. Jaeger, C. Jones, K. Lenn, D. Levin, S. Libeskind, H. Lin, C. McNelly, D. Miller, C. Moore, L. S. Morales, D. Olson, S. Paul, E. Peterson, S. Plummer, N. Rajabzadeh, M. Redford, J. Rowell, L. Stephen, T. Toadvine, N. Tublitz, P. van Donkelaar, L. Vanderburgh P. Walker

 

Excused: Rick Colby, C. Ellis, A. Emami, D. Falk, P. Gilkey, L. Middlebrook, M. Myagkov, J. Piger,

 

Absent: N. Butto, S. Giacomelli, C. Gray, M. Henney, R. Illig, M. Latteri, R. Rejaie, A. Taylor

 

 

CALL TO ORDER

 

The regular meeting of the University Senate was called to at 3:05 in 110 Fenton by Senate President Paul van Donkelaar.

 

APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES

 

Minutes from the November 12, 2008 meeting were approved as distributed.

 

STATE OF THE UNIVERSITY

 

President van Donkelaar noted that there were a number of informational items announced recently to bring to the senateÕs attention, such as the governorÕs proposed budget, the succession plan for the athletics director, progress on the Academic Plan, decisions made with respect to potential conflicts with the commencement date for 2010 and hosting the NCAA Track and Field Championship meet Conflicts of Interest/Conflict of Commitment (COI/COC) policy issues, and some information regarding review of internal governance.

 

Remarks from University President Dave Frohnmayer. President Frohnmayer noted some administrative personnel changes at the university with the arrival of Jill Hart as the new director of the Jordan Schnitzer Museum of Art, and with the appointment of Associate Director of Advancement Michael Redding to replace Vice President for Advancement Allan Price (who is leaving the UO to take a similar position at the Oregon Health Sciences University). Mr. ReddingÕs 18 month appointment begins January 1, 2009 and will help provide stability and a successful transition from the current administration to the new one anticipated later this year with President FrohnmayerÕs retirement in June. Also, the president reported on the development of an intended succession plan for the head of the Department of Athletics. The intention of the plan is to provide stability in the athletics program, especially football which is the fiscal anchor of the program. The plan, shared earlier in the week with the Faculty Advisory Council (FAC), evoked a thoughtful and searching discussion in the council which will lead to continued involvement in the future with the council and Intercollegiate Athletics Committee (IAC). (Some parts of the plan were already in the hands of the media, thus the decision was to reveal the entire plan at once, earlier than anticipated, rather than piece by piece.) The intention is to move Head Football Coach Mike Bellotti to the AD position some time in the future and Offensive Coordinator and Quarterbacks Coach Chip Kelly to the head coach position, the timing of both changes to be determined. The president indicated that these proposed changes were met with positive feedback.

 

On the economic front, the president reported that our immediate fiscal circumstances are not as dire as those of other similar universities across the nation (regarding the turmoil in world-wide financial markets and recession). He said the administration, schools and colleges have been prudent in their financial matters. The proposed governorÕs budget was received only days earlier, and a website has been set up with reports that allows budget transparency for the entire community. The president said that on the capital side of things, the budget was disappointing, almost to the extreme. He explained that the university has some projects, such as the Alumni Center, for which the university has received matching grants from private sources, but the bonding portion hoped for from the state is not forthcoming. He commented that a stimulus packet is being developed by Congress for the new federal administration, and the UO is part of that process. By nature of the presidentÕs position on the American Association of Universities (AAU) executive committee, the UO has been able to help create the nature of the response from the AAU as to what ought to be in the financial stimulus package. The president indicated he will continue to work on this issue. That said, the president added that over the longer run, even though the governorÕs budget is dire, it is favorable to higher education compared with some budgets in past years. He went on to say that there are two things that the UO can do that matter: remain an attractive place for students to come (applications for next year are running ahead of last yearÕs record student enrollment surge), and continue the quality of work that allows the UO to retain those student so that we are able to weather the current financial storm.

 

The president next reported that the Campaign Oregon books will close December 31, 2008, and even with the financial problems, the university continues to receive seven-figure pledged gifts. He anticipates an amount of approximately $830 million raised during the campaign, a wonderful tribute to the kind of generosity that the creation of a compelling university vision helps to create. There will be a modest celebration of this campaign on March 6, 2009.

 

Regarding capital construction projects, the president noted that the School of Music building is completed and a formal dedication will be March 6, 2009. The school will begin using the additional space as of January 1st. The College of Education will complete its new building construction and remodeling process in approximately 6 to 8 months. The Academic Learning Center for student athletics, which is an entirely gifted building for the university, is five weeks ahead of schedule. The additions and reconstruction of the University Theater is on schedule nearing is completion. And lastly, the final road blocks for the new basketball arena have been removed and a name selected, which will be announced publically in another week or so; it is on schedule with an anticipated opening in about two years (December 2010).

 

The president commented next on the Academic Plan process that is underway (see Provost BeanÕs comments later in these minutes). He expressed that he had never seen a richer, more textured, more inclusive discussion of academic priorities at this university than that which has occurred in the last eight weeks or so. Two things that the process has shown are the degree of care and thoughtfulness with which people have developed their individual submissions, which in turn are responsive to and build upon the comments of others, and second, the number of collaborative efforts involving conversations across disciplines that may have never occurred or that may not have developed as a consequence of dialogue with the other. He suggested this was a sign of deep personal engagement with the academic goals of the institution that one would be hard pressed to find in other places, and that is profoundly important in terms of the culture of the university.

 

President Frohnmayer next spoke about the receipt of the attorney generalÕs opinion solicited regarding university governance. He said there now is sufficient guidance to proceed to hold a meeting of the statutory faculty in order to make sure that actions taken in the past have sufficient legal authority to continue internal governance in the future. The meeting would require a simple set of acts, and the president will meet with the senate president and the university counsel to develop the final steps for the meeting. It is likely that such a meeting will be held sometime in the winter or spring term for the ratification process, which should be quite straight forward and simple. He suggested that a major re-thinking of governance needs to be done by the senate and by people the senate represent. He noted that the re-examination of governance held in conjunction with the installment of a new president on campus is a process that is provided for in the Internal Management Directives of State Board of Higher Education; it affords an opportunity for a vigorous renewal of the processes of university governance.

 

Lastly, the president concluded his remarks by clarifying a statement in the Oregon Daily Emerald that indicated he was part of the presidential search process. President Frohnmayer is not part of the search process for a new president.

 

During a brief question period, Senator Nathan Tublitz, biology, stated that the Intercollegiate Athletics Committee (IAC) is charged with overseeing changes in athletic personnel, and was not involved in the development of the athletic department leadership succession plan. He asked how the process could be changed so that the oversight charge to the IAC can be followed. President Frohnmayer responded by saying that the statements made regarding the succession plan are statements of intention. They represent his considered judgment based upon the best advice available in what turned out to be a very truncated period of time, and that he believes it was the best course of action for the university. He noted that university requirements are that the Affirmative Action Office posts the proposed personnel changes, and people are given the opportunity to react to them. The Faculty Advisory Council (FAC) has requested that Mr. Bellotti appear at a council meeting and Mr. Bellotti has readily agreed to do so and engage in a conversation with the council. The president also noted that there are no final contractual agreements that have been reached at this time; the succession plan was put forward as a statement of intention of the direction the administration wanted to go.

 

Academic Plan Update remarks from Provost Jim Bean. The provost said the Academic Plan development is going forward and that there have been some changes in the process due primarily to good advice received from the FAC and DeansÕ Working Group. Currently, the input from the on-line discussion ÒblogÓ will be put into a document for a committee to re-draft, taking into account all the comments from the blog and from the three open forums held. Two additional student forums are planned after the first of the year, and their comments will be added to the document. Part of the advice received was to separate the Òbig ideasÓ from the actual plan itself. Thus the section of big ideas will be separated and replaced with the strategic statement of the phased focus process and the selection process for big ideas, with examples provided. He said the process will continue the Òbig ideasÓ into the beginning of winter term, with the intention to close the discussion around mid-February and have the first phase of ideas selected by mid-March. Provost Bean asked the FAC chairman to appoint two other members to the committee that will be drafting the body of the Academic Plan, while the provost will draft the strategy section (subsequently, Lisa Freinkel, English, and Ed KameÕenui, education were appointed).

 

The provost went on to say that the Academic Plan document being put together by the committee and himself will be worded in such a way as to be clear that the document has had a great deal of input, but is not the final document; it will be sent to the Presidential Search Committee at that point as a draft. After the fall term break, the provost said he will have a series of discussions with departments and colleges for further review. Information from that review will be incorporated, along with student input, in the draft and will be sent for ratification in the senate. A second, separate process will be choosing what should be the criteria for the big ideas. Once the criteria are settled upon, the posters of the big ideas will be asked to reform them within the structure of responding to the criteria. The provost indicated that the senate vote will not be the final document because the ideas need to be in an appropriate portfolio for the community, so a difference committee will take the document to a final form. The provost explained that the entire process should be done by mid-to late March – early enough to inform the next budget cycle and be ready to hand to the new president for his or her consideration.

 

2010 NCAA Track and Field Championships and Spring Commencement Dates. Provost Bean explained that the UO was awarded hosting the finals for the 2010 NCAA Track and Field Championships which happens to be the scheduled during the same time period (Thursday, Friday, and Saturday) as Commencement (Saturday, June 12th). The conflicting dates have generated discussion because the UO does not believe that there are enough hotel rooms in the area to accommodate all the parents and NCAA fans anticipated. Many options to overcome this problem were investigated, with none of them perfect. After discussions with the IAC, FAC, and Senate Executive Committee, and student group leaders, the option chosen which received greatest support was to hold Commencement one week earlier, the Saturday between Òdead weekÓ and finals week. The students consulted about this option found it not to be a problem. Faculty and staff directly concerned with graduation preparations are looking at the option and the final decision regarding moving graduate ceremonies up one week earlier in 2010 will be made very soon.

 

Remarks concerning the Conflict of Interest/Conflict of Commitment process. Provost Bean took a few moments to address some issues and questions raised regarding the new Conflict of Interest/Conflict of Commitment (COI/COC) policies due for implementation in January 2009. The provost commented that upgrading the policies is the result of a legislated OUS requirement, and the administration has been formulating the policies after talking with the FAC and the Deans, trying to have something that is the least intrusive as possible. He noted that the UO is behind other comparable institutions in having such policies in place – these are standard policies and processes. The new policy is not a substantive change to current policy. Rather, the new policy requires faculty and staff to state what their position is relative to COI/COC. In reality, the policy is about the following principle: COI/COC means that faculty and staff have the potential, simply by the way things are set up at the university, that someone may fear they are acting not in the best interest of the university. So a major part of the policy is to cover faculty and staff from ethical issues that may be directed at them by having faculty disclose areas of potential conflict on forms provided that ask a series of questions. The intent is to investigate any potential conflict situations, work out a means to manage the conflict if one exists, and thus protect faculty and staff from any accusations of COL/COC. Provost Bean indicated that he, Senior Vice Provost Russ Tomlin, and Vice President for Research Rich Linton are available for any questions; the relevant documents posted on the website are for faculty review and comments. The provost also stated that the policy needs to be in place in very short order, so he invited input and comments from faculty and staff in order to reach common understanding.

 

During a question period, Senator Ellen Herman, history, asked a question regarding royalties received for textbooks written. The provost responded that royalties were not an issue, but using oneÕs own textbook in a course should be disclosed; it is expected that one is using it for an appropriate audience (an acceptable conflict), but if the text was being used in a class inappropriate for such a book and student learning suffered as a result, then that would be an unacceptable conflict. Mr. Tomlin added that the purpose of the disclosure is to identify anything that looks like a compromise or conflict that needs to be addressed; it is not to discourage faculty or staff activities, but rather to be transparent with these activities to avoid potential accusations of impropriety. Senate President Paul van Donkelaar indicated he would look into the formation of a committee to look at conflicts as they are disclosed, make recommendations for management of the conflicts, and advise the COI/COC process in an ongoing manner.

 

Presidential Search Update remarks from committee member Paul van Donkelaar. President van Donkelaar indicated the search committee is in the process of vetting phone call references for the candidates that should be completed in a day or two. The discussions of the phone calls have been centered on the academic administrative qualities of the candidates. The list of candidates will be reduced to a short list by mid-December. President van Donkelaar foresees a difficult meeting in that all the candidates are very good, so eliminating some will be difficult. The next goal is to start having face-to-face meetings with the short-listed candidates. He indicated the search committee was on track to make a decision on the final candidate(s) coming to campus in April. There may be a possibility of bringing additional finalists to campus if all the finalists agree to disclose their names; that will not be known until March sometime. President van Donkelaar said that his understanding is that the campus visit will be at least two days of meeting with a variety of constitutes on campus that would afford plenty of opportunity for feedback and exchange of information. He concluded his remarks noting that the search committee is making good progress and that it is a very good committee.

 

 

REPORTS

 

Faculty Athletic Representative Report from Jim OÕFallon. Mr. OÕFallon, law, reported on the academic aspects of the athletics program, specifically speaking about the NCAAÕs Academic Performance Rate (APR) as a mean of rating academic performance of student athletics. It is a team based measure with a target of a 60% graduation rate. If the team score is below a score of 925, the team can incur penalties, such as a loss in number of scholarships. He felt that the program has done a good job of drawing attention to student athletesÕ academic performance and progress toward academic degrees. The UO has no team program that is in immediate danger of sanctions (none are below the 925 standard, including football); among the top tier menÕs basketball programs, the UOÕs score is among the top 3 or 4 in the country. The UO scores are generally quite good, which means the student athletes are performing well in the classroom and are staying at the university; two things measured by the APR are eligibility and retention. He added that in the most recent graduation rate statistics, the UOÕs all-student graduation rate was 62% and the student athletesÕ rate was 71%. He commented that this is a benchmark of an athletics program doing what it should be doing academically.

 

Mr. OÕFallon highlighted several exception student athletes, including Galen Rupp who was recognized as the national cross-country runner of the year (he won the individually national championship as well) and who lead the menÕs team to its second consecutive NCAA national championship. Mr. Rupp also has a 3.90 GPA in business administration. Another athlete, Nick Reed, leads the PAC-10 Football Conference in quarterback sacks and is a two-time Academic All-American; he is now deciding whether to attend law school or go on to play professional football. Mr. Reed is a history major.

 

Mr. OÕFallon made one last general comment concerning academics and athletes. He noted that traditionally the NCAA has deferred to institutions and institutional judgments on matters of curriculum, such as what academic courses should count for credits, and so forth. The NCAA is now proposing legislation dealing with non-traditional forms of instruction – mainly on-line courses – in which they would impose significant restrictions from the NCAA regarding what could count and what courses could be taken; that is, even thought an institution approves courses, the NCAA could determine whether the course may count towards academic progress of a student athlete. This action might potentially restrict what courses could be taken by student athletes at a time when institutions are offering more and more different forms of instruction. Mr. OÕFallon opined that faculty members should be generally concerned about such legislation – he would not like to see the NCAA become the curriculum committee for any NCAA participating institution.

 

During a question period, Senator Jeffrey Hurwit, art history, asked how a baseball player would fulfill his academic mission given the extensive playing (number of games) and travel schedules baseball teams have. Mr. OÕFallon replied that the number of games is an ongoing concern, and one of the battles currently in the NCAA is regarding putting caps on the number of games (that is, reducing the number of games). The NCAA recently did a major assessment of the academic circumstances of baseball programs and came up with a series of more restrictive approaches to academic eligibility for baseball student athletes. For example, if a baseball player is not academically eligible in fall term, he will be ineligible to play the entire academic year. The policy is not set yet, and some faculty representatives have not accepted the proposal as the best answer. Mr. OÕFallon did mention that the new UO baseball coach has had an excellent record concerning the academic success of players on his previous teams. Lastly, Senator Tublitz commented that the PAC-10 faculty representatives wrote a very good letter to the NCAA regarding holding the line on academic standards, and he commended Mr. OÕFallonÕs efforts on behalf of the university.

 

Fall 2008 Preliminary Curriculum Report. Committee on Courses Chairman Paul Engelking, chemistry, noted a few edits of the circulated preliminary curriculum report. Secretary Gwen Steigelman added that the Department of Teacher Education has approval to change its name to Department of Education Studies, effective fall 2009. With no other changes forthcoming, the preliminary curriculum report was put to a vote and approved unanimously.

 

 

ANNOUNCEMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE FLOOR

 

The secretary announced the senate meeting location for Winter term will be 123 Pacific.

 

Update on plans for a statutory faculty meeting. Senate President van Donkelaar reported that he is working on procedures for having a statutory faculty meeting. He has a working definition of statutory faculty defined as: officers of instruction with tenure-related appointments and career non-tenure track instructional faculty. He indicated that he will meet with President Frohnmayer shortly to finalize the definition at which point a list will be generated to begin to communicate with that group. He said that President Frohnmayer ultimately will call the meeting and now the senate needs to decide when to hold the meeting. President van Donkelaar reported he had had communications with the stateÕs Department of Justice (DOJ), which essentially said that it would defend the actions of the University Assembly vesting internal governance with the current senate back in 1995. Nevertheless, and in as much as the timing is appropriate to have a review of the governance structure with a new president arriving in June, President Frohnmayer agreed it would be useful to hold a statutory faculty meeting to have a simple, straightforward ratification of faculty governance. The communication from the DOJ also indicated that it was not necessary to have a statutory meeting immediately, but rather in a timely manner in keeping with the planned review of faculty governance in general.

 

However, President van Donkelaar continued, because motion US08/09-2 passed last month set a deadline of January 31, 2009 for a statutory meeting to ratify the senate, and the DOJ has said the current senate is ÒokayÓ, there now is a choice of action: hold the statutory meeting by the end of January, or amend the motion to have the meeting later in the spring, and ratify a revised governance structure at that time. In respect to amending the motion, there are two options: give a notice of motion for the January 14th senate meeting to consider amending US-08/09-2 to move the statutory meeting date to a time later in the academic year, or, to have a motion to amend the motion at the current meeting and vote it. With that, President van Donkelaar opened the floor for advice on how to proceed.

 

Considerable discussion and clarification of consequences of various actions ensued. President van Donkelaar commented that the concern for having a statutory meeting by January was that the initial DOJ opinion stated that the senate was not legally ratified, whereas the most recent DOJ communication says that the current senate is legally defensible, thus removing the motivation for an January meeting (see http://www.uoregon.edu/~uosenate/dirsen089/PvD-Nov08.html). The president clarified that he would still appoint a committee to work towards revising internal governance structure in order to have something to present to the new president or presidential candidate, regardless of whether the motion is amended or not. Mr. Frank Stahl, emeritus biology, who originally supported a January 2009 meeting said that in light of the latest Department of Justice letter, a statutory faculty meeting later in Spring 2009 was acceptable. Senator Lynn Stephen was in favor of holding the meeting later in the spring and combining it with ratifying a revised governance document. At this point it was noted that to reconsider the legislation at the current meeting, an affirmative vote by a 2/3 majority, assuming there was a quorum (26 members); a hand count indicated that only 25 senators were present, so there was no quorum.

 

Discussion continued and Mr. Stahl asked why emeritus faculty were not include in the statutory faculty definition, reminding all that they had been included in faculty governance until the restructuring that occurred in 1995-6. He gave notice that he would make a motion to include emeritus faculty as members of the statutory faculty. (Note: this notice was subsequently withdrawn by Mr. Stahl prior to the January meeting.) To other questions concerning defining the statutory faculty, President van Donkelaar indicated that his approach is to make a local definition and have that group consider, provide feedback, and ultimately, vote on a boarder definition that would be included in the new governance document.

 

President van Donkelaar explained that he has been attending departmental faculty meetings and other faculty group meetings to get the information circulated. Early in January he will send out a letter to colleagues to outline the issues and the process moving forward on governance revision. He is in the process of naming an ad-hoc senate committee that will be charged with doing the work of revising the internal governance document. Further, he intends to create a poll in January that would seek the opinions of the statutory faculty about the strengths and weakness of the current internal governing structure and any issues that may be contributing to the problems perceived. The poll would provide feedback to the ad hoc committee for use, along with the opinion of the DOJ, to advise the current internal governance document to reflect the will of the faculty and bring that document into compliance with the DOJ opinion. At that point a document, or outlined document, would be posted on the senate website for people to review and provide opinions, much like what is being done for the Academic Plan. Then there will be another stage for people to give input on the strengths and weakness of the proposed internal governance document. Ultimately, the goal is to give the governance document to the final candidate for the president, or the actual new president, and have the new president give feedback whether it is something that he or she is willing to work with, or if there are potential changes to be made. Then, another statutory faculty meeting held late in spring would vote on the final document.

 

At this point, Senator Sharon Paul arrived and a quorum was achieved.

 

 

NEW BUSINESS

 

Amend US08/09-2 concerning the deadline for holding a statutory faculty meeting. Senator Stephen moved to amend motion 80/09-2 to read as follows:

 

Moved that,

 

The University Senate call for a meeting of the teaching faculty of the University, to be convened and presided over by the University President, for the purpose of legitimizing the University Senate. The meeting shall be held at 3:30 pm on a Wednesday, not later than the end of Spring Term 2009.

 

In addition to the previous comments and discussion during the announcements, background information on the need for the amendment was provided on a handout. Asking the senators if they were ready for the question, and hearing that they were, President van Donkelaar put the motion to amend US09/09-2 by moving the statutory meeting date to the end of spring term 2009 to a vote and it passed by hand vote.

 

Motion US08/09-3 regarding an ad hoc Senate Presidential Candidate Assessment Committee. Senator Hurwit brought the following motion to the floor:

 

Moved that,

 

The University Senate approves the immediate establishment of an ad hoc Senate Committee to monitor and contribute to the current search for the next President of the University of Oregon. This committee shall be known as the Senate ad hoc University Committee on the Presidential Search and shall have the following charge, membership, and reporting structure:

 

CHARGE AND RESPONSIBILITIES:

(a) Upon its establishment the Committee shall respectfully request of the Chancellor and the State Board of Higher Education's Presidential Search Committee that it be presented the names, applications, and files of the top three finalists for the position in a timely fashion (this information shall be held in the strictest confidence);

(b) The Senate Ad Hoc Committee, should it be granted access to the files of the finalists, shall confidentially recommend to the Search Committee its preference for the candidate or candidates to be brought to campus;

(c) The Senate Ad Hoc Committee shall urge the Search Committee to invite three finalists to campus;

(d) The Senate Ad Hoc Committee shall cooperate with the Search Committee in the scheduling of events and meetings for any candidate or candidates brought to campus to ensure as broad and deep an exposure to as many faculty, campus groups, and stakeholders as possible.

(e) Following the conclusion of the campus interviews, the Senate Ad Hoc Committee shall seek and gather as much feedback as possible on the candidates from faculty, students and other campus stakeholder groups; and,

(f) After receiving such feedback from campus constituencies, the Senate Ad Hoc Committee shall weigh all available information on the candidates and confidentially recommend to the Search Committee its preference for the next University President. The Senate Ad Hoc Committee shall coordinate closely with the Search Committee to ensure that its recommendation is made in a timely manner.

 

MEMBERSHIP: The membership of this Committee shall be appointed by the University Senate President in close consultation with the Senate Executive Committee. Membership shall consist of 9 tenured faculty members, 1 librarian, 1 officer of administration, 1 undergraduate student, 1 graduate student, and 1 classified staff member. The 9 faculty members shall represent the following constituencies: 3 from the College of Arts and Science (1 each from humanities, social sciences and natural sciences) and 1 each from the professional schools and colleges (Architecture and Allied Arts; Business; Journalism and Communication; Education; Law; Music and Dance). The University Senate President shall serve as a liaison between the Senate Ad Hoc Committee and the Search Committee. The Committee shall elect its own Chair.

 

REPORTING: The Senate Ad Hoc Committee on the Presidential Search shall report to the Senate on its progress and its contributions to the search as appropriate.

 

Senator Hurwit explained that he was making the motion on behalf of the Senate Executive Committee, and that the motion does not express any displeasure with the current Presidential Search Committee. Rather, it is made simply in the spirit of trying to ensure that the senate and campus faculty members have broader involvement in the search for a new president.

 

During a discussion of the motion, Senator Chris Jones, AAA, asked for clarification on items a, b, and c, that appeared to be inconsistent. Senator Hurwit explained that they are dependent upon a series of approvals that are requested of the Presidential Search Committee. Primarily, the latter items are dependent on the first two items. Another question was raised regarding the membership of the committee, requiring faculty members to be tenured. Senator Stephen moved to strike the word ÒtenuredÓ from the membership section. In discussion surrounding the proposed amendment, Senator Tublitz noted that the membership was similar to that of the Faculty Advisory Council, which typically has tenured faculty members on it; he argued against removing the word ÒtenuredÓ. Another senator spoke in favor of the amendment, saying that all faculty, including tenure-track faculty, would like to be part of the process. As the discussion wound down, the motion to amend US08/09-3 by removing the word ÒtenureÓ was put to a vote and passed. The membership section of the motion now read:

 

MEMBERSHIP: The membership of this Committee shall be appointed by the University Senate President in close consultation with the Senate Executive Committee. Membership shall consist of 9 faculty members, 1 librarian, 1 officer of administration, 1 undergraduate student, 1 graduate student, and 1 classified staff member. The 9 faculty members shall represent the following constituencies: 3 from the College of Arts and Science (1 each from humanities, social sciences and natural sciences) and 1 each from the professional schools and colleges (Architecture and Allied Arts; Business; Journalism and Communication; Education; Law; Music and Dance). The University Senate President shall serve as a liaison between the Senate Ad Hoc Committee and the Search Committee. The Committee shall elect its own Chair.

 

The main motion was again on the floor for discussion. President van Donkelaar, speaking as a member of the Presidential Search Committee, commented that item ÒaÓ requesting the confidential files of the three finalists implied a distrust of the UO faculty members who are part of the search committee. Senator Hurwit replied that the closed nature of the search was the issue and that the motion represented a desire for transparency; also, item ÒaÓ was phrased as a request, which may or may not be filled. Senator Tublitz added that the motion asks for the same things that are typical of any high level personnel search on campus, and he supported the motion. Other senators generally supported the motion, saying that there is interest in having some aspect of the presidential search similar to tradition, that is, an open search. With discussion concluding, President van Donkelaar put motion US08/09-3, as amended to remove the word ÒtenuredÓ, to a voice vote that passed unanimously.

 

President van Donkelaar indicated that he will form an ad hoc presidential assessment committee and communicate to the Chancellor the requests of the motion; he will ask the Chancellor to respond on the first item regarding the confidential files access.

 

 

ADJOURNMENT

 

The president noted that the Executive Session originally scheduled was delayed until the January meeting. With no other business at hand, the meeting was adjourned at 4:50 p.m.

 

 

Gwen Steigelman

Secretary of the Faculty


Web page updated 6 January 2009 by Peter B Gilkey 202 Deady Hall, Department of Mathematics at the University of Oregon, Eugene OR 97403-1222, U.S.A. Phone 1-541-346-4717 Email:peter.gilkey.cc.67@aya.yale.edu of Deady Spider Enterprises