Dear Peter,

This is a preliminary notice of motion for the UO Senate meeting of 29 March 2000. The motion will ask that the administration implement a moratorium on certain activities requiring extra expenditures until such time as the Sentae Budget Committee's goal of 95% of parity in compensation with our comparator institutions is achieved.

The activities are:

• (1) The creation of new independent academic programs, institutes, and departments, unless the new program, institute, or department does not require a nontrivial amount of unrestricted funds for either startup or operating expenses, and also does not rely on funding from donors who could reasonably be expected to be willing to contribute to general academic excellence funding instead.
• (2) The expansion of existing independent academic programs and institutes, or their promotion to the status of departments, with the same exception as in (1).
• (3) The creation of new administrative positions.
• (4) The expansion of the Riverfront Research Park, with the same exception as in (1).
• (5) The overall expansion of the Intercollegiate Athletics Program.

MEMO TO: Provost John Moseley
MEMO RE: Request from Senator Phillips for Information
MEMO FROM: Peter B Gilkey (UO Senate President 1999/2000)
MEMO DATE: 25 February 2000

Dear Provost Moseley:

I have been asked by UO Senator Phillips to forward the following email to you. I have heard informally from at least one UO Senator that thought is being given to proposing a UO senate motion which might suspend the formation of new programs or institutes which require significant internal funds until salaries at the UO reach parity of 95% with our comparators. I do not know if the request of Senator Phillip request is related to such a possible motion; I simply mention it to indicate that his request comes under the heading of official UO Senate Business and is in my judgement a request that is both reasonable and proper to make of the UO Administration. Consequently, I should be most grateful for any information you could provide although I do regret any additional burden upon the time and energy of the UO administration which this may impose. As the UO Senate takes up budgetary matters at the 29 March meeting of the UO Senate and as any notice of motion relevant to this debate would have to be given no later than the 8 March meeting of the UO Senate, time is pressing. I would hate for any debate to take place in the Senate which was not fully grounded on a mutually agreed upon factual basis; for that reason I also forwarded an informational request by Senator McLauchlan to you last night http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~uosenate/dirsen990/dirextra/McLauchlan24Feb00.html

Respectfully submitted

Peter B Gilkey (UO Senate President 1999/2000)

Dear Peter,

This is a formal request that you pass on to John Moseley the following informaton request [from my earlier message to him]:

I have been told that the Program in Judaic Studies was largely funded by donors, or at least that its startup costs were; maybe this is true for some of the others as well. Nevertheless, I would like to ask what independent academic programs and institutes have been created or expanded in the last 5 years (or some similar convenient time), what the total increase in recurring operational costs is (and how much is from unrestricted funds), and what the startup costs have been.
(By "independent academic programs and institutes" I mean things like the Program in Judaic Studies, Program in Environmental Studies, and the proposed Diversity Institute, not additional degree programs in existing academic departments such as Biology or Economics.)

Thanks. ---Chris

Peter and Chris--Let me first say that I can find no record of having received this request earlier.

It will be very difficult to provide definitive answers to the question, but I can go back through the records and try to at least identify the kinds of programs this request seems to target.  The reason it is difficult to provide definitive answers is that one most consider costs, revenues, overall positioning and competitiveness of the University of Oregon.  For example, the Judiac Studies program was in fact initiated due to private funding, but with some matching from the University (I can find out those numbers specifically).  At the same time, through the new budget model, it generates income--some of it income that we might have received anyway, and
some which we would not have.  Furthermore, an assumption was that by having such a program, UO would attract students which would not otherwise come here, and those students would generate income in other areas in addition to Ethnic Studies.  This program is to new to get a reasonable estimate as to the overall balance of costs and revenues, but the projection was that overall the University would benefit financially from having this program.

Environmental Studies has proven to be very popular, and certainly generates revenues well in excess of its costs.  The extent to which we would receive some of these revenues in the absence of the program is difficult to determine, but one could try to estimate that.  However, obviously, this can't be answered quickly.

Many of the new programs we have instituted, for example, the Math/computer science major, really involved no new costs but were repackaging of existing offerings to provide new "official" majors for students.

I don't think we have started any new research institutes during this period, but overall I think all of the existing institutes provide a net financial benefit to the university, in addition to strengthening our research competitiveness.  With the exception of the Humanities Center and CAPS, these types of institutes and centers have very small budgets from the general fund.  Their money comes from grants and indirect costs.

It would be a major task to attempt to reliably quantify these matters. Chris, perhaps we should meet and talk about what you are interested in accomplishing.

John