February 16, 1996
MINUTES OF THE UNIVERSITY SENATE: FEBRUARY 14,
ROLL CALL Present--Allen, Belitz, Blandy, Bybee, Clark,
DeGidio, Dugaw,Engleking, Ferguson,
Gibson, Girling, Harvey, Haynes,
Holland, Hurwit, Isenberg, Kevan, Kintz,
Lesage, Leavitt, Maxwell, Moreno, Owen,
Ravits, Ryan, Schachter, Soper,
Tedards, Watson, Welch, Westling.
Absent---Anderson-Inman, Davis, Wood, Wybourne.
CALL TO ORDER
Senate President Paul Simonds called the meeting to order at 3:03 p.m.,
in 221 Allen Hall on February 14, 1996. The minutes of the January 17,
meeting of the Senate were approved with the following two corrections:
Senators Dugaw and Kevan were present. The Secretary stated that the
minutes would be corrected.
Ms. Judith Eisen, Chair of the Committee on Committees, requested
allow the Committee she chairs to alter the process of filling committee
vacancies this Spring. She distributed the following letter, composed by
the Committee, to the Senators.
SUBJECT: REFORMULATION OF EXISTING
The recent reorganization of University governance provides
an ideal opportunity to reexamine the structure of University committees.
During the last few years, it has become increasingly difficult to recruit
faculty members to serve on standing committees. In querying faculty about
their reluctance to serve, members of the Committee on Committees have come
to the conclusion that the current set of standing committees does not
serve the needs of the University. Therefore, we propose that the current
Committee on Committees, rather than simply selecting individuals to serve
on standing committees, take on the task of examining each committee and
making a recommendation to the Senate about which ones should be continued,
which ones should be disbanded, which ones should be reorganized, and whether
some new ones might be necessary. We further propose to clarify the
between administrative and advisory committees and to establish clear links,
where appropriate between standing committees and the Senate.
To embark on such a mission, the Committee on Committees clearly requires
the support of the Senate, which we request in this letter. We further
request that the Committee on Committees be granted the power to examine
University committee structure on an ongoing basis, so that standing
whose service is no longer required can quickly be dissolved.
Because of the magnitude of this proposal, the Committee on Committees
from the Senate the power to change the way of recruiting for standing
is done this year. We propose to send to all faculty, along with a committee
preference form, a letter informing them of this plan, explaining that
committee assignments they take for next year will be temporary, and to
provide them with a current list of the functions of each committee via
the World Wide Web and packets available in Departmental offices. However,
if we do not receive sufficient interest in committee participation, other
than those prescribed by law or Oregon Administrative Rule, we propose to
allow the committee to be composed of only the interested parties. In other
words, we do not wish to recruit additional committee members, even if the
committee would then be considered short-handed by normal
Ms. Eisen stated that the time spent cajoling faculty to serve on these
committee is considerable and that the frustration among Committee members
is very high. A study of the structure of the committees and the assigned
duties of these committees might very well clarify the mission and purpose
sufficiently to become more attractive to faculty to serve the University
by serving on these committees. For each individual to serve on a committee
it means that the time constraints on each individual has been increased.
The satisfaction of service must equate with the time surrendered from
other assignments, duties and obligations of the faculty member. For many
faculty the trade-off is not equal and thus the lack of interest in
It was suggested by one Senator that the Committee on Committees
faculty who have served on various committees for input on what the function
and mission of the committees really fits with what the committee did during
the tenure of the chair or the member. The Committee on Committees should
than evaluate these statement in relationship to the assigned function and
mission. This past experience would help put into perspective the committee
structure and the value of the committees.
Senator Mark Watson, Library System, moved that the Committee on Committees
be given the authority requested in the letter. The Senate approved this
motion without dissent.
FORUM ON PARKING
Senate President Simonds introduced Mr. Dan Williams, Vice
Administration, to make a presentation on the proposed parking fee increase
and to answer questions about the subject of parking on campus.
Mr. Williams commenced by stating that the parking problem has no real
satisfactory solution. Whatever decision is made will not be the right
decision for some faction, while the decision will be quite satisfactory
for another faction. Pieces and parts will be ok or not ok. A problem
that has not been addressed concerns "expectations." The
has not fully grasped the expectations of all of those involved and thus
satisfaction has been made more difficult.
An outside group has been engaged to do a transportation study
University. This group has interviewed or contacted many persons on campus
to help it in its study. The purpose will be to review all aspects of the
current program. The final report of this study group will be available
when the study has been concluded.
In response to a question concerning permits sold, parking slots,
of parking slots, and reserve numbers, Mr. Williams gave the following
The number of employees on campus is as follows. (This is supplementary
to the minutes and is not an official part of these minutes.)
|Classified/Mgmt||1125 || 322||1447
|GTF|| 0 ||1299||1299
|Students|| 2||2506|| 2508
|Temporary (not defined)||
0|| 165|| 165
[source: Employment Division Report, October 1995]
Total number of FTE students Fall 1995: 16,074
Total number of all enrolled students Fall 1995: 17,138
[source: Office of the Registrar, University of Oregon]
Permits sold: 2,000 to faculty (faculty have access to 100%
of all unassigned, e.g., not reserved, parking
spaces) 2,300 to students (students have access
to 50% of all unassigned parking spaces)
Slots available: 2,800.
Reserve slots: around 10% or 280. (This includes disabled slots.)
Slots available for general parking: 2,520.
The University has converted a number of metered slots to dual
use. If you have a parking sticker you can park at designated meters without
charge. About 150 meter slots are so marked.
If you add the metered slots to the general slots available the total number
of available slots would be 2,670.
Since 1990 the University has created 700 new slots and has lost 500 slots
for a gain of 200 since l990. With the dual use metered slots included
the gain would be 350.
Mr. Williams explained that the parking fund is in what the State
defines as an auxiliary budget--that is it is not money generated from tax
sources. University Housing has such a budget. All parking related expenses
must be paid for from the fund, e.g., patrolling the lots, enforcing the
rules, pay for the parking stickers, offices expenses related to parking,
providing alternatives to the use of the automobile, etc. The fund, as
of December 1995, shows the sources as follows:
50% from permits
30% from fines
18% from meters
and about $20,000 from miscellaneous sources.
The total for all of the money collected was: $1,000,000.
Senate President Simonds interjected at this point that the first parking
fee was established in 1962 and the cost was $35.00.
In 1988 this was raised to $108.00. The fee increase in 1988 was based
on the cost of constructing a parking structure between 16th and 17th and
Alder, where the tennis courts are located. This construction would have
been less expensive than other proposed sites as the land is sloped and
thus the two storey parking structure would not have had to have ramps thus
reducing costs. But with opposition coming from neighbors in and around
this area of Alder the parking structure idea was scuttled. It was felt
the University should not hurt its relationship with those who live in the
area where the structure would have impacted most directly.
The Secretary has been informed by the University Planning
that the number of parking slots that would have been added to the inventory
by the construction of the parking structure wold have been about
Instead of building the parking structure, the revenue was used
with LTD for faculty/staff passes, construct new parking areas/slots, putting
hard surfaces on the parking lots, pay-off the bonding of $1.3 million used
in the construction of the Bean Hall lot, pay the fee charged for water
drainage from the parking lots, and to keep up with the inflationary
related to parking keeping the parking fee at $108. The LTD contract is
presently a $95,000 expenditure. This program, in addition to the ASUO
purchasing passes for all students, has been successful and LTD has stated
that the busiest loading area it has is at the bus stop near the Chiles
Center. When Measure 5 passed it was decided to reach into the parking
fund to fill in some of the gaps that were created when the budget in public
safety was cut and the parking fund had to take on more parking related
expenditures. An unplanned hit, that the parking fund takes each year,
is the amount the fund must contribute to the "tax" (indirect
costs) that President Myles Brand put on auxiliary budgets to help pay for
areas that the UO subsidizes for the auxiliary accounts. This has come
to about $400,000 so far.
Some of the parking fund has been loaned out--and these loans are either
being paid back or have been paid back. One of these was to Intercollegiate
Athletics and this is being paid back, and the second was the use of $400,000
to purchase the "Rainer" building. This building is used by
and the loan has been repaid.
At present the parking fund is in a deficit and has been for two years.
This deficit was created when the expenditure side passed the revenue side.
No one noticed this event when it occurred and now it must be remedied.
The proposed increase in the cost of a general parking permit for
(from $108 to $135) and students (from $60.00 to $75.00) will bring the
fund back into balance over the next several years. The cost of administering
the parking program will be reduced as some security costs will be returned
to the general fund budget, and to reduce the indirect cost recovery amount
for the short term. No increase in the reserve parking fee of $315 is
(The reserve parking fee is presently $108 plus $315 for a total of $423,
but because the permit fee will go to $135 the reserve cost will be $458.)
At this time Mr. Williams concluded his extemporaneous remarks and asked
if anyone had any questions or observations as he would be glad to respond
or to direct the question to one of the people that accompanied him to this
meeting if the question needed more detail than he could provide.
Senator Jeff Hurwit, A&AA, was recognized and he said that
feeling among his colleagues was one of frustration with the parking
The fact that faculty and staff have family obligations that might require
them to arrive after 8:00 a.m. means that they will not find any place to
park. The permit, after 8:00 a.m., does not even equal a hunting license.
He wanted to know if a certain lot could not be designated as
parking only? Perhaps a 3-tier system based on cost and location could
be devised. The closer you wish to park to your work place the more it
would cost and the further away you are the fee would be much lower. Mr.
Williams felt this was something that might be worth thinking about.
Senator Julia Lesage, Humanities, stated that her colleagues have
deal of anger to deal with when it comes to the parking problem. She
that the fee charged should be based on income level--the more you make
the more you pay. Another suggestion she made was to establish a reliable
shuttle system from Autzen Stadium to the campus. Mr. Williams stated that
a study sometime back showed that about one-third of the employees at the
University came across the Ferry Street bridge to work. Parking in the
Autzen Stadium lots and the bussing suggestion have been looked at before,
but it will not work until people are fully prepared to embrace it. Studies
have shown that the inconvenience must be worthwhile before the shuttle
bus idea will be accepted and make the cost a wash. It is possible that
this threshold has been reached--but past surveys have not supported this
Senator Lesage continued with what became a repeated theme, that
problem of child care and family responsibilities that preclude getting
to the campus prior to 8:00 a.m. before the present lots are full. Added
to this is the required coming and going of faculty women who are nursing
or have infants and thus they must leave campus and return during the class
Senator Cynthia Girling, A&AA, asked if the permits sold are
line with the number of available spaces. Mr. Williams said that the law
of supply and demand controls the situation and that the alignment seems
to be all wrong when the lots are saturated, but that this is not true all
of the time or all day long and that it is less of a problem on some days
than other days. But this balance is a serious problem and one that will
be looked at by the Study Group.
Senator Stephen Kevan, Natural Sciences, stated that the people
department (Physics) that contacted him about their concerns over the parking
situation were very upset. The squeeze is between family obligations and
teaching and research. The parking situation looms high in this squeeze.
As to the metered spots on University Street that are available for parking
with permits Senator Kevan pointed out that the entire street seems to be
blocked off on some days for athletic events, thus eliminating all of this
added space on these days. This makes the spaces unreliable and impacts
directly on all other aspects of the parking problem. He concluded that
the reserve system is not managed well as these spaces are too freely given
without challenge or inquiry as to purpose. Mr. Williams stated that each
person requesting a reserve slot must provide a signed written statement
that they meet the requirements for a reserved slot. The Department Head
and/ or the Dean must pass on this request before it can be sent forward
for University level approval. This requirement states that you must come
and go from the campus, on University business, several times during the
week. A reserve slot is not to be given for the convenience of the
just to guarantee a place to park.
Senator Wayne Westling, Law, was recognized and suggested that
was really being hit hard by the proposed increase. Any increase must be
looked upon as a pay-cut, and the staff have not had any pay increases
they have been or will be hit by Measure 8, and this increase will be another
hit. Some of the people in the Law School have said the failure to build
the parking structure following the last increase in the parking fee amounted
to fraud, that is, taking money with no return on what was promised. OPEU
signed-off on the increase with the understanding that a parking structure
would be built, and did not get what was promised. Mr. Williams strongly
disagreed with the charge of fraud and stated that parking slots have
in number and that opposition from neighbors made it impossible to build
the parking structure without offending these people. The decision to find
a different "solution" at the time was well publicized.
Senator Jacqueline Gibson, Officers of Administration, confirmed
and frustration and added that the anxiety that is created by the parking
situation adds unneeded pressure to the start of each work day. The pressure
must be released and the best way is to find a remedy to the situation.
Senator Paul Engleking, Natural Sciences, in good humor, thanked the
for adding to his health by having him walk long distances due to the fact
that he had to park so far from where he worked. He then added that he
felt most people would be willing to pay the proposed increase if a
assurance existed that a place to park could be found and not just to have
the fee increased to make the hunting license more expensive and not provide
the needed assurance.
A student, Ms. Susan Anderson, asked if the ASUO used student
fees to purchase
the LTD pass for students, and the University Administration used the parking
fee to purchase the LTD pass for faculty/staff, was this not a case of the
students who purchase a parking permit paying twice for the LTD pass which,
with the UO purchase of the LTD pass with parking permit funds, resulted
in the students paying for a benefit for which they are ineligible to
Mr. Williams stated that this was one reason why students did not pay the
same amount for a permit as faculty/staff.
Senator Suzanne Clark, Humanities, added that the housing
faculty and staff would not ease, that is affordable housing near the campus
that would allow individuals to walk to work or ride bicycles daily will
never be available. The automobile will not go away and thus the parking
situation will not go away.
Senator Martha Ravits, Humanities, added that the situation that requires
people to come and go during the day because of family obligations was a
real problem. Mr. Williams stated that Ms. Karen Logvin, Human Resources,
has made special arrangements for nursing mothers in the past that did allow
these mothers to come and go from campus. Each situation is addressed
and Ms. Logvin would be the person to contact to see if a remedy is available
for a given situation.
Senator Anne Leavitt, Officers of Administration, added that
the lack of parking slots you have no option to pursue when you do not get
a place to park--even a reasonable, but inconvenient slot is not available.
Senator James Isenberg, Natural Sciences, stated that a number of employees
work late and if the shuttle bus idea was to be adopted the busses would
have to run late into the night and on a regular schedule. Senator Hurwit
added that the bus schedule must be dependable if the shuttle bus option
was to be adopted.
Senator Girling inquired about parking near and about the
An example she gave was where the wood waste pile had been in the Physical
Plant area, could this be turned over to parking? Mr. Christopher Ramey,
University Planning, stated that the wood waste area is a part of the
Park and not available to parking.
In conclusion Mr. Williams summarized many of the statements made
that the intention is not and has never been to eliminate the use of the
automobile, but to discourage the use of the automobile through the
of alternatives to select from in replacing the automobile as a commuting
Senator Ravits asked if the rules and laws of the Senate are available.
President Simonds replied that the various laws and rules are being put
into order and will be available shortly. The composition of these items
fall into three categories: 1. The establishment legislation from Assembly
that created the New Senate containing legislation that the Senate cannot
alter or change; 2. Rules of the Senate that can only be changed by a 2/3ds
vote; 3. and the By-Laws that the Senate has adopted and can change by
vote. The President said that he is working on the final form of all of
this and would have copies available shortly.
Senator Hurwit asked that the President invite Provost John
a senate meeting to discuss the student credit hour model and why this has
pitted department against department for students creating an unhealthy
competition for enrollment at the department level. Senator Davison Soper,
Natural Sciences, suggested that representatives from the Undergraduate
Education and Policy Coordinating Council be invited at the same time so
a thorough discussion of undergraduate education could take place. President
Simonds stated that he would contact Mr. Moseley and the Chair of the UEPCC
to arrange a time when they would both be available for such a meeting.
Senator Westling recommended that the issue of parking--budget,
turned over to the Senate Budget Committee for study and recommendations.
Mr. Williams stated that the public comment hearing on the fee increase
would be on February 29, 1996. This date indicates a short period for the
Budget Committee to react but all faculty and staff are invited to the
and to make comments at that time.
The business of the meeting having concluded the University
at 4:55 p.m.
UO Senate Homepage