Minutes of the University Senate February 12, 2003
Present: H. Alley, L. Alpert, E.
Bailey, J. Bennett, L. Bowditch, V. Cartwright, F. Cogan, J. Earl, C. Ellis, M.
Epstein, L. Fuller, F. Gearhart, D. Herrick, M. Holland, R. Horner, P. Keyes,
D. Leubke, M. Linman, G. Luks, G. McLauchlan, C. Mc Nelly (nvp), S. Midkiff, A.
Morrogh, R. Ponto, M. Ravassipour, M. Russo, E. Singer (nvp), L. Skalnes, D.
Soper, B. Strawn, C. Sundt, N. Tublitz, J. Wagenknecht, M. Wilson, M.
Woollacott, R. Zimmerman
Excused:
K. Aoki, L. Freinkel, M. Partch, J. Wasko
Absent:
A. Berenstein, B. Blonigen, C. Bybee, A. Elliott, R. Graff, W.A. Marcus, K.
Merrell, M. Myagkov, M. Shirzadegan, C. Smith (nvp), F. Tepfer,
CALL TO ORDER
Senate
President McLauchlan called the meeting to order at 3:10 p.m. in 123 Pacific.
APPROVAL OF THE
MINUTES
Minutes
from the January 15, 2003 Senate meeting were approved as distributed.
STATE OF THE
UNIVERSITY
Remarks
from Senior Vice President & Provost John Moseley. Provost Moseley reported that the state's budget woes
continue. The most recent projected
shortfall is another 5%, which means $100 million added to shortages originally
estimated, and translates to $2 million in additional cuts for the UO. If the May forecasted revenues are down another
$200 million as predicted, the UO's $6 million shortage could be increased by
an additional $4 million. If additional
shortages occur, the tuition surcharge will have to be increased an additional
$3 to raise $5 million in order to avoid eliminating classes. The Spring Term charge will be $13 rather
than $10. The provost also noted the
governor's recent edict regarding rolling back the recent 3% salary increase. It is likely that it will not affect
faculty, but may affect officers of administration (the governor's management
category). In addition, there are three
OUS campuses with union contracts that influence the criteria for the
rollbacks.
Tuition
receipts, including the surcharge, have netted more income than originally
predicted, and the university has made a few other savings. Consequently, with the additional surcharge
and with a 1% budgeting cut from all university departments, the year's budget
will balance. However, if shortages for
the UO increase to $3 million, next year will begin with no reserves. In the February, the deans will discuss
whether or not the UO should act preemptively regarding a salary freeze for
next year, which is very rigid at this time regardless of the source of funds. The provost indicated he was asked to
present best and worse case tuition proposals.
The best case would mean a tuition increase of 8 or 9% that would reduce
the governor's budget projections by the 4% currently needed. The worse case scenario was a 12% tuition
increase that still would leave a $6 to $8 million shortfall. According to projections, it is unlikely the
UO will have a tuition increase less than 12% in the next biennium. Even at this level, the UO proposals for
tuition hikes reflect some of the lowest increases of the OUS institutions. Increased tuition cost will limit student
access, but financial aid will help.
Provost
Moseley reaffirmed that the UO is obligated to provide quality education, and
said that the key to future UO success is to become less dependent on the state. He emphasized that the university cannot
educate more students than its funding will allow. The New Partnership with Oregon document which is now in the
legislature as the Higher Education Efficiency Act was written to aid in
explaining this dilemma to legislators.
The bill will enable the university to operate more efficiently by (a)
indexing students to a reasonable number according to the Resource Allocation
Model (RAM), (b) accepting more nonresident students, and (c) working to enroll
a reasonably sized freshman class (smoothly over a number of years). The Higher Education Efficiency Act is doing
well and, if passed, will assist the UO with regard to efficiency and income. One example of such income assistance would
be to allow the UO to keep interest earned on the tens of millions of dollars
flowing through the university.
The
provost opened the floor for questions.
Senator Michael Linman, ASUO, asked if the 12% tuition increase would be
across the board regarding in-state, out-of-state, and international
students. Provost Moseley replied that
out-of-state and international students currently pay their full tuition, thus
Oregon resident students will pay the increase.
Senator
Linda Fuller, sociology, asked if the Dean's Council discussed the wisdom of
across-the-board budget cuts versus targeted cuts for specific units. The provost said the general information
would be discussed although the council's ability to make changes will be
limited. He noted that it is late in
the biennium for making such cuts, so rationalization will continue. Senator Chris Ellis, economics, asked if
there is any sense of a time frame for acting on the Higher Education
Efficiency Act. Provost Moseley
responded that issues with revenue implications go through the Ways and Means
Committee, usually in late March, and could possibly be voted on prior to the
budget. Senator Jack Bennett, academic
advising, asked if a letter would be sent to Officers of Administration regarding
the salary rollback. Provost Moseley
said it is too soon to know what the content of such a letter would be.
Senator
Nathan Tublitz, biology, asked what the approximate percentage of state
contribution to the UO budget has been over the last 10 years. The provost responded that prior to Measure
5 (a measure that capped property taxes), the state contribution was
approximately 32%; it is currently about 16% to 17%. State funds for instruction amount to a little less than $70
million. Tuition and other funds
provide a little over $100 million. Any
cut is diluted by this relative funding ratio.
Changing the topic, Senator Maury Holland, law, asked about the bad
publicity the UO was victim to last week regarding poor behavior at an off
campus party that a prospective football recruit attended. He asked if the UO plans to respond to the
allegations. The provost replied that
NCAA recruiting rules prevents coaches and athletes from commenting on
potential recruits. Whether further
comment will come forth is unknown at this time. The provost opined further that there is no way the athletics
department or a particular coach can be responsible for an individual's
behavior. However, the provost said he
has participated in many recruiting events and has been very impressed with the
general atmosphere at the events; the focus has always been on getting an
education.
Senator
Stephanie Midkiff asked how the plan for discounted tuitions for other than
prime time classes is working. Provost
Moseley reported that afternoon classes are now full and more popular. Students like the afternoon class tuition
discounting as a strategy for dealing with increasing tuition and providing
greater choice and options. In a similar
vein, Senate Vice President Lowell Bowditch, classics, asked if financial aid would
be increased. Provost Moseley said
financial aid packages are based on need, and the UO will continue to meet the
standard practice of offering all resident students a financial aid package,
including loans, to be able to attend.
He noted that the average student graduates with $16,000 in loans, but
the difference in average salary between an AA degree and a BA degree is
$16,000. Senator Dave Soper asked how
the UO's out-of-state tuition compares with other schools in the region. The provost indicated that the UO is a
bargain, comparatively speaking. UO
tuition rates are below those CO, CA and WA and above AZ, ID and UT. Senator Robert Ponto, music, ended the
discussion by stating his appreciation for the arduous work the provost has
done, and continues to do, in addressing the budget situation.
Survey
of Public Attitudes about the UO. Associate
Dean Friestad reported on a recent telephone survey to determine public
attitudes about the university. Data
were collected in January 2002 from a random sampling of 300 donors, 300
alumni, and 500 registered voters. The
three most frequent positive compliments about the UO regarded the quality and
breadth of education, athletics (less than 50% related to football), and campus
appearance. More than 50% of those
polled had nothing negative to say about the university; for donors and alumni,
negative comments focused on the weather, parking, and under-funding
issues. The survey asked a number
questions, including, how important is it for the UO to have faculty who care
about teaching, do you agree or disagree that UO faculty care about teaching,
are we meeting expectations, and so forth.
Salient findings were that only 3% of those surveyed disagreed that the
UO has a faculty that cares about teaching.
Faculty who care about teaching was very important among those
surveyed. Also of importance was for
the UO to teach student to solve problems and think analytically. Those surveyed felt it was important for the
UO to provide a broad education that includes the humanities, social sciences,
and physical sciences. Another issue
that surfaced was keeping tuition low enough to allow most parents in Oregon to
send their children to college. Survey
respondents did not necessarily think a UO education is too expensive, but they
generally did not know the cost of tuition.
Sixty-five percent of those polled believe that a resident undergraduate
student would pay over $5,000 for one year's tuition and fees. Only 20% of polled registered voters
accurately knew tuition costs. Once
informed, the voter respondents felt that a UO education is a good value but
more than the average family can afford.
Dean
Friestad remarked that to counter misperceptions it is important to get the
correct information to the public. She
also noted that registered voters have broader expectations than donors and
alumni. Of the registered voters
polled, 18% had postgraduate degrees, 22% undergraduate degrees, and 60% did
not have a college degree. Key findings
were that (a) there are many soft perceptions of the UO not backed up with
facts, (b) the public is vulnerable to negative information, (c) there are
large gaps in performance of the UO versus public perception, (d) the UO
faculty cares about teaching, (e) there is a knowledge gap on a number of
issues raise and questions asked, and (f) three quarters of those polled did
not know that the UO brings more money into the state than it gets in its
budget from the state. The dean closed
her remarks by indicating that the poll was for internal use only and results
are housed in Vice President for Advancement Allan Price's office.
Senator
Ellis warned of being careful in how perceptions are cleared up, for example,
in the voters' perception of the funds the university attracts. He suggested that if voters think we bring
in too much money, they might not understand our budget shortages and campaign
needs. Provost Moseley agreed that it
is essential for voters to be made aware of the benefit the state receives from
the UO and the amount of money that is spent and stays instate.
When
asked if the UO being affordable to students and continuing a $600 million
Comprehensive Campaign is reasonable in light of the state's budget and
financial problems, Dean Friestad said these are essential issues and are
expected by the UO donors. Concern was
raised that advertising the UO as a moneymaker may hinder the efforts of the
Comprehensive Campaign. Senator Linman
felt it was troublesome that donors are not too worried about the affordability
of the UO, to which Dean Friestad replied that we must educate donors about the
importance of providing financial aid (in part through their donations) for
students.
Update on UO Comprehensive Campaign.
Vice President Lorraine Davis, chair of the Comprehensive Campaign
Advisory Committee, reported that nearly 700 campaign ideas and proposals have
been submitted from faculty members, departments, and schools/colleges, which
if all were funded, would cost $2.1 billion to implement. Realistically, however, the campaign
fundraising target is $600 million. She
noted the purpose of the campaign is to enhance educational opportunities for
faculty and students, not to provide funding support for core expenses. Campaign planners are in the process of
categorizing and sorting proposals with the context of the UO Mission Statement
and the Strategic Directions document, using their various indicators. The majority of the proposals were geared
toward the quality component. The
leading campaign themes are (a) advancing knowledge through teaching and
learning; (b) advancing knowledge through discovery, research, and scholarship;
(c) student opportunity and experience (access and accountability in and out of
the classroom); and (d) strengthening our community and society (economic
development components and quality of life).
In
the next step the campaign advisory committee will decide which are showcase
proposals for particular departments or the university and which are
feasible. Committee member Nathan
Tublitz, biology, added that an issue under discussion is how the athletic
component fits into the comprehensive campaign without becoming the main
focus. He stated that the campaign
planning participants are faculty members, students, classified staff, and a
broad base of people from the UO community.
Further, there is an over whelming view among committee members that the
goal is aimed toward academic excellence, and each of the proposals is of high
quality.
Vice
President Davis added even though not all proposals can be funded, the process
has allowed many units and faculty members to think of what they would like to
see happen with the campaign. When
asked if there is a community member or donor on the committee Vice President
Davis replied there was not, but foundation members will be involved in
discussions regarding feasibility issues.
Report
from Interinstitutional Faculty Senate (IFS).
IFS
representative Peter Gilkey, mathematics, provided a handout (see http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~uosenate/dirsen023/IFS78Feb03.html)
summarizing the February IFS meeting.
During that meeting, the state senate president Peter Courtney (D)
painted a continuing grim picture of the financial crisis in the state, which
will undoubtedly affect planning for the 2003-05 biennium. Mr. Gilkey indicated that the IFS would meet
with most of the legislative leadership this April in Salem and then a meeting
jointly sponsored by the IFS, AOF, and AAUP will be held with the legislative
leadership on May 3, 2003 (a Saturday morning meeting) in Corvallis to which UO
senate members are encouraged to attend.
Senator
Julie Novkov, political science asked if the UO has a voice in discussions
regarding the PERS situation. President
McLauchlan answered that former University Senator Margaret Hallock is on leave
from the university to be a senior advisor for Governor Kulongoski, and can
represent the interest and needs of the UO quite strongly. The three faculty organizations previously
mentioned have different roles and are at every open meeting regarding the PERS
situation, so the university has representation.
COMMITTEE REPORTS
Interim
Report from President's Task Force on Athletics. Athletics Task Force members Margie Paris, Suzanne Clark, and
Jenny Kenyon (student member) provided highlights from the first of three task
force interim reports (see http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~uosenate/dirsen023/RptAthCom15Feb03.pdf
for full text). This first report
addressed three issues: (1) Do we fulfill our educational mission with respect
to UO student athletes, (2) Do student athletes receive inappropriate
preferential benefits, and (3) Are student athletes exploited. After extensive discussion with coaches,
student athletes, and the Student Athletic Advisory Council, Ms. Paris reported
that the task force is confident the UO does fulfill its educational
obligations and mission with respect to student athletes. When asked how football and basketball
programs fared in the report, Ms. Paris said there were no identifiable
problems with these ėmoney' sports.
Most data cannot be disclosed for individual sports or student groups
because of privacy laws, however it was noted that the UO has an 83% graduation
rate for athletes compared with a 59% graduation rate for the entire
university.
Looking
at the issue of whether student athletes receive preferential benefits, the
task force considered the levels of financial and academic support,
registration, and enrollment benefits.
They concluded that there are preferential benefits, particularly in the
area of advising, but not inappropriate benefits. For example, two-thirds of the student advising services are paid
for by the athletic department but are rendered through the university's
academic support services, not the athletic department itself. Ms. Paris said there is integrity in these
services and that they are available to all students, not just student
athletes. Similarly with regard to
class admissions and registration, the athletic department uses some
preferences available to them and is more aggressive in their use than other
departments. With sport training
schedules limiting the athlete's availability for classes, preferential
treatment is necessary to meet the academic goals for the athletes and to
comply with the NCAA time-to-degree requirements. Ms. Kenyon stated that the majority of athletes take academics
seriously, and any preferential benefits are to assist them with academic
performance, not sports.
The
last issue addressed in the report concerned whether or not student athletes
are exploited by the university and used to increase revenue. The task force reported that academic
standards and graduation rates reflect that UO athletes are not exploited. The task force was generally pleased with
the ethos of the athletics department, noting their emphasis on academics,
which is not the case at many other Division I institutions. The athletic department is under
extraordinary pressure regarding these issues and the task force felt it was
important that faculty have weighed in on the issues. Ms. Paris announced that a forum would be held to further discuss
the findings of the task force on March 5, 2003, from 4:00 p.m. to 5:30 p.m.
Senator
Eugene Luks, computer and information science, asked if preferential treatment
for athletes in registration affects the non-athletes registration. Ms. Paris replied that the task force did
not know, but said other students have voiced concerns regarding this
issue. The registration preference is
only used during the sport season of a particular athlete and statistically
speaking the percentages should not be enough to make a difference for the
non-athlete students. It was suggested
that Registrar Herb Cherek might be a resource for this question.
Senator
Malcolm Wilson, classics, asked if there were any major dissentions among
committee members to which Ms. Paris replied that surprisingly, there were
not. She remarked that the next two
reports address the major issues of revenues, admissions, the high cost of
athletics, and athletics' role in the Comprehensive Campaign, which are likely
to be more conflicting and contentious issues.
NEW BUSINESS
With
time running late, President McLauchlan noted he had received notice of motion
regarding establishing a quorum for the University Assembly. Also, it was noted that over 500 signatures
have been gathered on a petition calling for a meeting of the University
Assembly, with legislative authority, to consider a resolution against war with
Iraq. After petition signature
verification by the secretary, President Frohnmayer will announce a meeting
time for the assembly in the near future.
ADJOURNMENT
The
meeting was adjourned at 5:06 p.m.
Gwen
Steigelman
Secretary