January 31, 1997
Minutes of the University Senate meeting January 15, 1997
Present: Acres, Altmann, Anderson, Belitz, Bennett, Blandy, Chadwell, M. Davis, DeGidio, Ellis, Farwell, Gerdes, Gilkey, Halpern, Hawkins, Kimball, Kintz, Larson, Leavitt, Lees, Luks, Ostler, Owen, Page, Pope, Ravits, Rogers, Ryan, Soper, Stavitsky, Tedards, Unger, P. Young.
Excused: Berk, H. Davis, Engelking, Hurwit, Maxwell, Paris, Westling, J. Young.
Absent: Isenberg, McGee, Morse, O'Keefe, Wolfe.
ALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order by President Carl Bybee at 3:10 p.m. in room 204 Condon. Hall. Minutes from the November 13, 1996 which had been dispensed with during the December 4, 1996 Senate meeting were amended to include Senator Isenberg as excused rather than absent, and as follows: (page 5, paragraph 5, second sentence) "... and we plan to institute a major combining mathematics with computer and information science next fall." The November 13, 1996 minutes were approved as amended. Minutes from the December 4, 1996 meeting were approved as amended to include Senator Isenberg as excused rather than absent.
ANNOUNCEMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS FORM THE FLOOR
President Bybee introduced Mr. Peter Swan, university counsel to the president, to speak to the proposed amendment OAR 571-003-0025, Prohibited Discrimination, Harassment and Sexual Harassment at the University. Mr. Swan explained that the proposed amendment arose from a compliant by a nonstudent applying for admission who claimed discrimination on the basis of a disability. Although such grievances and complaints are routinely accepted and responded to by the university, the current relevant OAR does not reflect this practice. Thus the proposed amendment is essentially a housekeeping chore to make the OAR compliant with federal law. Mr. Swan further indicated that written comments on the amendment would be received until 5:00 p.m. January 31, 1997.
Vice Provost Lorraine Davis spoke on the report requested by the Senate regarding current practices and procedures for reviewing administrators, in particular, deans and department heads (see Ostler motion, December 4, 1996 meeting). Vice Provost Davis began by indicating that her report was not inclusive of all administrative review policies, but rather was tailored to our specific inquiry. Generally speaking, there are approximately 600 officers of administration, augmented recently with the merging of former management service employees (as of November 1, 1996). As a result of this merging and other changes in contractual agreements, many of the personnel policies for this group as a whole currently are being revised by a subcommittee.
Because the Senate's primary interest concerned review procedures for deans, Vice Provost Davis turned her attention to this topic. She indicated first that the timing for the review process was somewhat mitigated by the various contract lengths, which was changed in 1992 to permit only 2 year contracts for officers of administration. Hence some of the timing of reviews are still tied to the previous two or three year contract periods -- such inconsistencies should be eliminated when the subcommittee working on revisions finishes its task. Vice Provost Davis noted that deans, as tenured members of the faculty, are entitled to formal post-tenure five year reviews. In addition to, or in lieu of, formal five year reviews, deans may request a review, be reviewed in response to a complaint, or be reviewed at the request of the Provost. Informal review of deans are done on a regular basis by annual appraisal of goals (both personal and as a unit) at the deans' Fall retreat, at the time of contract renewal every two years, at times of merit-based salary increases, and in many colleges and schools by means of an advisory committee. These latter reviews are often quite formal and are frequently managed by the Office of Academic Affairs in consultation with the dean or administrator. Regarding formal reviews on a five year cycle, Vice Provost Davis indicated she had participated in 10 such reviews since 1990. Usually these reviews are done under the jurisdiction of appointed committees with three to seven members. With the change of provost from Provost Wessells to Provost Moseley, some of the deans up for review were delayed until appropriate goals could be established. There is a set schedule for deans' review. The review has been done in a variety of ways via the committee -- some have used specific criteria for objective evaluation, some have used surveys. The provost office has consulted with the deans in developing an objective evaluation that may be "portable" among the various schools and colleges. The reporting out of results has been differential as well; some are distributed by the individual deans usually through the advisory committee, and some deans have provided an executive summaries sent to the faculty or the department head. In all cases, waiver procedures are in place as they are for tenure reviews so that respondents know whether their comments are confidential or not. Associate deans and department heads reviews primarily are college or school based. The final authority for reappointment rests with the dean. Typically, each school or college establishes its own procedures which many vary widely among them. An example procedure employed by the College of Arts and Sciences was included with the report.
During a question and answer period that followed, Senator Cheney Ryan, philosophy, asked if deans were appointed by five year contracts, to which Vice Provost Davis answered that deans have two year contracts with the expectation that they will be renewed through a five year period. Senator Ryan suggested there was poor logic in using a fifth year review in that if performance was found unacceptable, there was no time to look for a new dean. Further, Senator Ryan asked if in fact these procedures were being followed, saying for example, that he, as a faculty member, has not been asked for input on a review since the days of President Brand. Vice provost Davis responded that not every faculty member is asked to respond in a dean's review and that procedures vary among schools and colleges. For example, in smaller schools nearly every faculty member in the school has a means for input. However in the larger colleges such as arts and sciences, departments have been asked for input and committees have decided who will be asked for input for the review.
Senator Ann Tedards, music, referred to a section of the faculty handbook that indicated officers of administration would be reviewed every three years and wondered if this was accurate. In response, Vice Provost Davis said that in fact this is not the case, but that reviews are usually done in two year periods. Senator Daniel Pope, history, asked if a formal dean review is scheduled for the College of Arts and Sciences this year, to which Vice Provost Davis replied that it was. Hearing no more discussion, President Bybee thanked Vice Provost Davis for her report and accompanying remarks.
The next item under discussion was a review of the revised Building a Senate Agenda priorities listing as developed by the Senate Executive Committee. President Bybee noted that three main areas of interest emerged from the survey which could serve as the framework for discussions for the remaining Senate meetings for this academic year. These were (a) issues of governance, including administrative review and student participation in the University Senate; (b) issues of faculty and student resources and quality of academic life, including topics of salary compression, library support, domestic partner benefits, tuition remission and reduction for faculty, staff and dependents, and parking; and (c) issues of productivity and educational quality, including intended and unintended consequences of The Productivity Plan, and educational technology and educational quality. President Bybee suggested that several individuals would be needed to organize the background materials for each discussion topic as it appears in future agendas. So far, the Budget Committee will provide information concerning The Productivity Plan and Senator Pope, as the Senate's representative on the Educational Technology Committee, will tackle the background materials for the educational technology and educational quality issue.
Moving along in the agenda, President Bybee noted that he had received a request for Senate endorsement of the statement from the Interinstitutional Faculty Senate (IFS) supporting Governor Kitzhaber's budget for higher education. A number of state agencies and organizations as well as institutions of higher education have been asked to endorse the statement which will be sent to representatives in the legislature during the current legislative session. Senator David Soper, physics, moved that the University Senate endorse the IFS statement (as circulated in the Senate agenda). Senator Martha Ravits, women's studies, opened the discussion asking whether the statement as presented was the letter that would be sent to the legislature or if it was a draft. Mr. Paul Simonds, president of IFS, responded saying that the statement was in its final form as presented, that it had been edited, and that the IFS was asking for an endorsement of this statement as is. Senator Phil Young, anthropology, joined the discussion stating his contention that various points in the statement do not accurately reflect the mission of the university, referring specifically to the emphasis on economic development, and as such he was against supporting the letter as it stood. Rather, he suggested an alternative statement be made in support of the Governor's budget for higher education. Hearing no further discussion, the question was called and the motion for the UO to endorse the IFS statement supporting Governor's Kitzhaber's budget for higher education passed (20 yes, 11 no votes).
President Bybee then called on Mr. Steven Chatfield, chair of the University Committee on the Curriculum (UCC), to present the Fall 1996 curriculum report for review and approval. Mr. Chatfield indicated that the UCC is still in the process of phasing in their quarterly reports and noted that the Fall 1996 report was in many ways like the previous annual curriculum reports; items approved in the final Fall 1996 report will go into effect with Fall 1997 unless indicated differently in the report. When the quarterly cycle is fully operational, implementation of items approved will occur almost immediately. Mr. Chatfield clarified the new "separation of thinking" between the bulletin of course offerings and the UCC report: formerly, items approved in the Fall curriculum report were not official until they appeared in the undergraduate and graduate bulletin; however now, as the quarterly reports become part of a regular cycle, items approved in the report are official, yet may not be listed in the current printed bulletin. This is particularly true for upcoming curriculum reports for Winter and Spring quarters. Due to the once yearly printing schedule, only those changes approved in the Fall report will be printed in the course bulletin appearing the following Fall term.
Entertaining questions from the floor, Mr. Chatfield responded to Senator Soper that an electronic version of the bulletin was not yet available, although efforts are being made in that direction. Senator P. Young asked if a department's home web page information can stand as official course offerings. Mr. Chatfield deferred to Vice Provost Davis who answered yes, that was the intention. However, Mr. Chatfield cautioned about the confusion that may arise if a department is not diligent about keeping the web page information up to date. A topic under current discussion is the question of who should "police" the department's web pages for accuracy. Ms. Nan Coppock-Bland, university editor, also raised the issue of returning students who wonder what set of course or degree requirements they will be held to, suggesting that the printed bulletin should be the official curriculum in such cases. Mr. Chatfield replied that the bulletin was not a binding contract with the student, and President Bybee added that most departments had well-defined curriculum requirements for students who return after an absence from their course work.
As Mr. Chatfield opened the floor for amendments to the report, he admonished everyone who intends to have a course be implemented prior to Fall 1997, that is, implemented in Spring or Summer 1997 terms, to please notify Ms. Coppock-Bland immediately in order that the earlier implementation time can be noted. Having stated such, Mr. Chatfield opened the floor first for basic typographical corrections followed by discussion of items recommended for approval by the UCC. Senator Gene Luks, computer and information science, raised the issue of course duplication of CIS 131, Introduction to Business-Information Processing, with the business college's proposed new course BA 131, Management Information Systems. Senator Luks indicated that CIS 131 served primarily business college students, and course content was designed in frequent consultation with the business school. With the new course proposed by the business college, would there be any need for the computer and information science department to continue offering their course CIS 131? Students may not receive credit for both courses. Senator Luks expressed his dismay that faculty in computer and information science were not an integral part of the deliberations, and that they had no opportunity to point out duplications in the courses and the impact of the proposed new business course on CIS 131. Rather, he stated, discussions were held at the deans' level and even so, somewhat late in the process. Senator Luks suggested that because little faculty input was involved in recommending the proposed new course and because there are continuing discussions about, it would be prudent to delay approving the course at this time.
Mr. Chatfield clarified how the UCC came to recommend the proposed new business course (BA 131) after initial committee discussions rejected it. Traditionally, if a school or college had no representative on the UCC and a proposed course was rejected, the school or college was invited to address the committee and state its case for the new course. This was done and the UCC in a split vote decided to recommend approval of BA 131. Mr. Chatfield continued that the curriculum committee found it regrettable that deeper discussions and dialogue involving the faculty had not taken place, but that the committee received assurances that the dialogue between the units would continue, with the business school initiating them. Further, the reality of rejecting the BA 131 course would result in the business school offering it as an open-ended course number, with the concurrent loss of students for the CIS 131 course. The UCC believes that there is a niche of other students besides the business students that would be disadvantaged if computer and information science decided to drop the CIS 131 course. Associate Dean Tom Dyke, arts and sciences, indicated that indeed, the deans had discussed the course duplication issue and that there is disagreement between arts and sciences and business that have not yet been resolved. Other comments from the floor concerned the appropriateness of using open-ended course numbers for the course in question, and, whether this was part of a pattern of the business school developing courses which extend into other department's areas, such as BA 101, Introduction to Business, meeting the group requirement for social sciences. Mr. Chatfield replied that the UCC firmly encourages regular course numbers to be used for courses whose content is regularized and varies little. Further, the business school has been encouraged to develop such courses in its own area. Again, Mr. Chatfield reminded the Senate that the UCC brought forth its report as recommendations for adoption by the Senate, but that it was up to the Senate to either accept or reject the recommendations. The committee felt it had done its work in forwarding the report for adoption and approval.
Senator Del Hawkins, business, responded to Senator Luks objections about BA 131 reaffirming the notion that the proposed course is context embedded in the school of business and is not duplicative of CIS 131 pointing out several areas in which he believed the course content sufficiently different to warrant approval as a new course. With the hour growing late, President Bybee brought the discussion to a close asking for a motion to act on this specific class. Senator Luks moved to strike BA 131 and references to it from the UCC Fall 1996 term report. As previous discussion had focused on this issue, the discussion was brief with proponents and opponents reasserting their respective viewpoints. Senator Tedards moved to amend the original motion by sending this single item (course BA 131) back to the UCC for further discussion. The motion passed. However, as chair of the UCC, Mr. Chatfield indicated that the committee was finished considering this proposed new course, had made its recommendation, and was not interested in further consideration of it, thus effectively receiving the just passed motion and returning the Fall 1996 curriculum report it to the Senate with its original recommendations for course approvals. At this point President Bybee stated that if it is the Senate's desire to have further deliberations about the proposed business course take place, the required action would be to strike BA 131 from the Fall 1996 curriculum report so that it may be discussed further and perhaps come back to the UCC for a future quarterly curriculum report. Senator Luks' original motion to strike proposed new course BA 131, Management Information Systems, from the Fall 1996 curriculum report was again put forth. The motion passed (19 yes votes, 6 no votes, and 4 abstentions). As a final action, it was moved to accept the recommendations of the University Committee on the Curriculum Fall 1996 Report as it now stood. The motion passed.
With items remaining on the agenda, President Bybee noted the lateness of the hour and asked if the Senate wished to continue past the designated time of the meeting. A student senator suggested that a more general discussion of agenda items occur among Senators prior to Senate meetings to facilitate the Senate's ability to get through the entire agenda. She noted that it was discouraging when Senators come prepared to discuss an agenda item to not have time for the discussion at the designated Senate meeting.
President Bybee entertained a motion of adjournment and the meeting was adjourned at 5:00 p.m.
Secretary of the University Senate