CALL TO ORDER

Senate President Greg McLauchlan called the regular meeting of the University Senate to order at 3:07 p.m. in room 123 Pacific.

APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES

Minutes from the February 15, 2003 meeting were approved as distributed.

STATE OF THE UNIVERSITY

Lorraine Davis, Vice President for Academic Affairs. Vice President Davis reported on several on- going items. First, the Comprehensive Campaign is moving forward. The trustees, as core donors and active participants in the campaign, met recently to offer important ideas and perspectives on the campaign's general four-pronged themes of teaching and learning, creating new knowledge, community, state and society, and student opportunities and experiences. Second, the vice president commented that despite the current state freeze on hiring and travel, the university has been able to make exceptions to meet staffing needs. Most position replacements have been approved and the UO has been successful in receiving positive responses to position offers. She remarked that nationally, other institutions are experiencing budget issues like the UO, and many are cutting programs.

The state budget situation continues to look bleak. Although the university already has cut $13.1 million from the general funds portion of its budget this biennium, more budget cutting is anticipated in the next biennium. The Oregon University System (OUS) has asked that budget-cutting scenarios of 2, 4, 6, 8 and 10% be submitted. Although the current governor's proposed budget puts the UO at the 4% cut level, higher percentage cuts may be in store if budget forecasts remain negative, and significant tuition increases are expected. OUS has not made specifications or limits on areas in which to make cuts, but the legislature could. At this time, the system has allowed each university to be flexible in determining how it will make the cuts. The next major budget forecast is due in May.

Briefing on governmental affairs and UO Lobby Day in Salem ? April 9th. Mr. Tim Black, governmental affairs, stated that the New Partnership initiative, now named Senate Bill 437 -- the Higher Education Efficiency Act, is making its way to the state legislature's Ways and Means Committee and it is getting a positive response. Also making their way through the legislature are bills and resolutions to deal with the huge backlog of deferred maintenance issues on OUS campuses. OUS is seeking $500 million in bonding authority, and if passed, the UO portion would be $123 million. Also on the docket is Senate Bill 360 which, in part, would establish "signature" research centers at the UO and OSU. The bill allocates $30 million split between OSU and the UO, the UO portion going toward developing further expertise in "nano" (extremely small) technologies.

Mr. Black noted that April 9th is Lobby Day in Salem for the UO. He advised that anyone may participate in the event as long as it is on one's own time. He will assist in scheduling meetings with legislators and pairing participants with others attending. Senator Julie Novkov, political science, asked if the OUS is putting pressure on the legislature with regard to funding the Oregon Opportunity grants. Mr. Black responded that the UO supports the reinstitution of funds for students and families; notwithstanding, he questions whether an official stand should be taken on this issue considering the budget cuts already in store for the system. In a related question, Senator Nathan Tublitz, biology, asked Vice President Davis what percentage of the UO budget were represented in the cuts this biennium. Vice President Davis said the approximately $13.1 million in cuts represents around 7.5 - 8% of the budget, and that the state's contribution to the UO total budget is down to approximately 16%.

Interinstitutional Faculty Senate (IFS) representative Peter Gilkey, mathematics, encouraged UO senate members to participate in Lobby Day, adding that there are a number of statewide organizations that represent faculty, students, and classified staff. Organizations that represent the faculty include the Association of Oregon faculty, the IFS, and the American Association of University Professors. Mr. Gilkey noted that it is exciting the Oregon State legislators are interested in hearing what constituents have to say; honest dialogue and small group lobbying can be very effective. He, too, reminded everyone that all lobbying must be done on private time.

STANDING COMMITTEE REPORTS

University Library Committee. Several members of the University Library Committee addressed different aspects of the serious situation facing the library concerning projected cuts in serials. As an AAU member and research university, it is crucial for the UO to maintain a high quality and quantity serial collections. Further reductions represent a serious threat to the research capacity of the university. UO Librarian Deb Carver said from the 1990s to this decade, serial inflation cost averaged 10% a year. The sciences appear to inflate costs the fastest, but in recent years the social sciences and humanities are catching up. During the 1990s the UO library's purchasing increases averaged about 3.8%. More recently, labor obligations, the high cost of information technology, and campus budget cuts have continued to limit the library's ability to increase the materials budget enough to match the rate of costs inflation and avoid further cancellations; each year the gap between the recurring costs and budget applications grows. Yet, if left unattended, subscriptions will consume the library's entire budget. Ms. Carver stated that the longstanding goal is to maintain a balanced, rational collection development policy, with 70% for journals and 30% for other resources. After years of steady 10% subscription increase, canceling serial titles is necessary to restore balance in resource material. This problem will continue until there are significant, new models to disseminate and preserve scholarly research. It is predicted by year 2013 research libraries will have to cancel another 20% of their collections, based on a favorable economy and exchange rates, neither of which Oregon now has. Since 1992-93, the UO has cut $850,000 worth of serials, approximately 2,400 titles, and still has been increasing spending on journals. The UO reduced its journal collection by approximately 12% and at the same time spent 54% more on the journals that remained. The library now planning to identify another $400,000 to $600,000 worth of titles to cancel. To help mitigate the effects of such cuts, the library is considering several options: (1) electronic only subscriptions, (2) noncommercial publications (lower cost journals equivalent in focus and content to higher cost commercial publications), (3) resource sharing ? ORBIS is a good example, and (4) the open archives initiatives, although not all disciplines have public archives. Ms. Carver concluded with the hope that this will be the last serials cancellation project.

Mr. Michael Raymer, physics, spoke about the issue of inflated journal subscription prices. He noted that a large faction of academic publishing has been taken over by large corporations, yielding rapid rates of inflation and large operating margins (often around 32%). He opined that the old model for publishing is broken and a new publishing model for academic work is needed to regain control of the process. He suggested that faculty authors need to support journals with lower margins and operating costs; for example, nonprofit journals, free journals, and journals where the costs are born by the authors. He cited the Berkeley Electronic Press as a resource for people starting their own journals (see http://bepress.com/). Also, editorial board members of some science journals have insisted that commercial publishers reduce their cost to the academic community. In some cases, board members have resigned; in other cases publishers agreed to reduce the cost of their journal. Regardless, Mr. Raymer urged journal authors to contact their publishers to ask their position on costs and to ask them to support the open archive initiatives. Another issue of concern for faculty members is the belief that they must publish in "certain" journals to attain tenure. Mr. Raymer suggested that it might be worth having college and departmental discussions around this issue.

Literature citations and searching databases are also a concern. Mr. Raymer indicated that the WEB of Science, and Inspect ? two databases ? are expensive. The science library's electronic access goes back only to1996. For a onetime charge of $200,000 access to earlier years can be available, but the issue becomes one of deciding what is more important: keeping access to the WEB of Science, or having 10 more journals available. When asked if the UO has a policy that faculty can access information not available to the public, science librarian Victoria Mitchell responded that some print material was replaced with less expensive electronic versions. Who may access this material is limited by licensing contracts with the electronic version companies. Generally, on campus usage is allowed but in some instances, only certain faculty and staff members have access.

Mr. Daniel Pope, library committee chair, added that faculty new to the committee are shocked when they learn the proportion of the acquisition budget going to serials, and are even more shocked when they hear the figures on inflation rates. On a more positive note, the UO library is not alone with these funding issues ? the need to control serials costs effects everyone. The library is not creating the problem, but rather working to alleviate it. Mr. Pope made several general suggestions: (a) continue to expand the archives initiatives to hold down prices, (b) be proactive without being aggressive regarding cuts, (c) and talk with others in your departments and discuss the broadest values for money spent.

Senator Malcolm Wilson, classics, asked if there is a national effort to aggressively challenge, or perhaps boycott publishers that charge extortionist rates. Ms. Carver responded that here is some effort, but few publishers would sign on. In the past, the UO has taken a stand not to purchase journals from one particular publisher. Senator Mike Russo, business college, wondered if there was any relationship between the prestige of a journal and its rise in cost. Ms. Carver replied that well known, large publishing companies with premiere journals have generally higher rates, but the rates increases have more relationship with whether a journals is "for profit" or not. Ms. Carver indicated all journals to be cut will be listed, and there will be opportunities for departments to "buy back" titles that other departments may have cut.

Senator Tublitz added there has been a tremendous consolidation of publishing houses over the last 15 years and consequently, more stringent requirements put on purchases. He indicated there are non-profit publishing houses that contract with academic societies and that have capacity to do the publishing job. Senator Dave Soper, physics, asked if it would be helpful for the UO library to cancel subscriptions from the big publishing houses to drive their business to the smaller, non-profit publishing houses. Ms. Caver replied that the UO by itself is too small to have an impact, but perhaps a consortium could be effective in this area. With the discussion ended, President McLauchlan thanked the presenters for their information and insights.

Committee on Courses ? Preliminary Winter 2003 Curriculum Report. Mr. Paul Engelking, chair of the Committee on Courses presented the preliminary Winter 2003 Curriculum Report. He drew attention to the bottom of page 12, noting that Music 111 to 311 has many instruments listed and that the School of Music agreed to make these courses topical instead of by individual instruments. Another change is that the committee will no longer accept the handwritten proposal sheets. Instead, proposals must be completed on the website ? Ms. Lexy Wellman in the College of Arts and Sciences (CAS) office will provide the password. Mr. Engelking further noted that group satisfying courses proposed for group satisfying status must be submitted to the Intercollege General Education Committee, hosted by CAS. Faculty members should contact their own dean's office to arrange to have course proposals sent to that committee. Proposals for undergraduate groups satisfying multicultural courses must include written justification regardless if they are new or existing courses. Existing courses with changed material must go through approval again in order to distinguish between changed material and becoming a new course. Proposals for new and changed courses should be accompanied by full syllabi. Mr. Engelking also stated that the accreditation committee established equivalents of our course credits to those of other institutions. Unless there is a translation formula, the requirement is 1 student credit hour for 30 hours of student work. In order to transfer credits among institutions, an enforced standard is necessary. Syllabi will be used to verify substantial and measurable differences between 400 and 500 level coursework.

Senator Frances Cogan, Honors College, asked if there had been discussion regarding credit for overseas classes for fulfilling the multicultural requirement. Mr. Engelking responded that the course must be an ongoing, standing course to meet the requirement; however, the Academic Requirements Committee (ARC) will and has considered petitions on that issue.

Mr. Pope, history, expressed his objection to attempts to monitor course workloads through syllabi, and asked for discussion on ways to respond to the accreditation committee. He indicated that there was a course credit translation formula (number of contact hours) in place but the accreditation committee's guidelines are being used instead. Mr. Pope said the head of the Education Committee (of the accreditation team) questioned the number of contact hours and credits assigned to the different courses. Mr. Engelking agreed that often accreditation teams are "drilled" in boiler plate course requirement, but regardless, one should be able to distinguish among 2, 3, and 4-credit courses on the basis of the syllabi. The UO may offer a 4-credit course that, by title, may be the same as one offered as a 3-credit course at OSU. However, the UO course has greater student involvement on the basis of the syllabus. The alternative is developing a form where the student's class workload is outlined. Mr. Engelking concluded by stating that syllabi should be reflective of what is required in a course.

Vice President Davis instructed that a three-person committee will help handle the transition to using the CAS course proposal website, and that a trained individual will manage the website. Regarding the course workload issue, Senator Soper suggested that a question be added to student course evaluations asking them about the amount of time they put into the course. Mr. Engelking replied that the Undergraduate Council was not enthusiastic about the idea because a likely tendency would be to claim more time spent than actually occurred.

The motion to accept the Winter 2003 Curriculum Report passed unanimously. The final version of the report is posted on at http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~uosenate/dirsen023/CurRptW03-final.html.

ANNOUNCEMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE FLOOR

President McLauchlan called on ASUO Legislative Officer Stephen Meyers who gave a brief update on the recent trip of UO students from a legislative conference in Washington, DC. While there, they met with Oregon senators and Representatives on a variety of issues important to students, such as PEL grants entitlement, increases in graduate student scholarships and fellowships, increased support for childcare for students with children, repeal of the drug related suspension on financial aid, the Voter Registration Act, and the Higher Education Act.

President McLauchlan announced that the senate would meet in room 240C McKenzie Hall for Spring term; however, the year end organizational meeting (May 28th) will be in the library Browsing Room as usual.

NEW BUSINESS

Notice of motion. Mr. Daniel Pope gave notice of his intent to submit a motion concerning the US Patriot Act and its implications for the campus community.

The University Assembly quorum issue. President McLauchlan reminded the senate that at the previous senate meeting Senator Soper gave notice of a resolution asking the senate to pass a rule setting a quorum for the University Assembly at one half plus one of the number of assembly members who are eligible to vote for non student members of the University Senate; that is, one half of the "voting faculty", or approximately 650 members. The current University Assembly quorum number is set by Oregon Public Meetings Law, and is one half plus one of the University Assembly's total membership, or approximately 1,060 members. Senate Parliamentarian Paul Simonds advised President McLauchlan that the University Senate cannot pass legislation to set rules for the University Assembly because they are two different bodies as established in the original enabling legislation. Thus, President McLauchlan deemed Senator Soper's resolution as not in order. President McLauchlan noted there were at least two views regarding the governance system. One is that the current system worked; the former University Assembly effectively delegated its legislative authority to the senate in 1995 and is now largely ceremonial in function, with the one unusual exception when it is called by petition with full legislative power. The other view is that the system is broken and its legitimacy questioned because the quorum necessary to conduct legislative business in a legislatively empowered University Assembly is unrealistically high. Further, in order to change (lower) the quorum requirement, it must be done in a meeting in which the quorum is met.

Discussion on this issue ensued including comments on whether voting or attaining a quorum electronically (via email) would be appropriate, on Roberts Rules of Order and its use in a legislatively empowered assembly meeting, on interpretation of Oregon State law and its application regarding meetings of governing bodies, on the feasibility of a "virtual" assembly meeting, and on a recommendation to effect change in the senate's governance. President McLauchlan indicated that he intends to discuss the variances and concerns regarding the two governing bodies with President Frohnmayer, who as president, sets the agenda and chairs meetings of the University Assembly.

OPEN FORUM

During the open forum portion of the meeting, President McLauchlan responded to concerns about revisiting the question of the anti-war with Iraq resolution that was deemed not within the purview of the senate during the December senate meeting. He indicated that in light of that vote, the Iraq resolution would not be put on the senate's agenda unless he received a petition to do so signed by a majority of senators (25 or more). Mr. Frank Stahl, biology, and petitioner for the Iraq resolution, provided a handout (see http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~uosenate/dirsen023/Stahl17Mar03.html) on the issue for the senators and presented President McLauchlan with a petition signed by 400 members of the voting faculty asking the senate to address and debate the Iraq issue. Mr. Stahl also accused President Frohnmayer of deliberately hindering the process of calling a legislatively empowered University Assembly meeting because he disagreed with the resolution. Senator Lars Skalnes, political science, commented that the petition presented by Mr Stahl dealt with the Iraq issue but did not address the question of whether the topic was within the purview of the senate. With the hour growing late and numbers in attendance dwindling, President McLauchlan brought the discussion to a close.

ADJOURNMENT

The meeting was adjourned at 5:08 p.m.

Gwen Steigelman Secretary