Present: H. Alley, E. Bailey, A. Berenstein, L. Bowditch, J. Earl, A. Elliott, C. Ellis, M. Epstein, L. Fuller, F. Gearhart, D. Herrick, M. Holland, R. Horner, P. Keyes, D. Leubke, M. Linman, G. Luks, W.A. Marcus, G. McLauchlan, C. Mc Nelly*, S. Midkiff, A. Morrogh, R. Ponto, M. Russo, M. Shirzadegan, E. Singer*, L. Skalnes, C. Smith*, D. Soper, B. Strawn, C. Sundt, J. Wagenknecht, M. Wilson, M. Woollacott, R. Zimmerman (*non-voting participant)
Excused: K. Aoki, C. Bybee, V. Cartwright, F. Cogan, M. Partch, M. Ravassipour, F. Tepfer, N. Tublitz, J. Wasko
Absent: L. Alpert, J. Bennett, B. Blonigen, L. Freinkel, R. Graff, K. Merrell, M. Myagkov

CALL TO ORDER

Senate President Greg McLauchlan called the regular meeting of the University Senate to order at 3:10 p.m. in 123 Pacific. Before proceeding with the agenda, President McLauchlan announced that the University Senate and the ASUO would host a forum regarding the University and the Iraqi Crisis on Tuesday, January 21, 2003 from 7:00 -  9:00 p.m. in the EMU Ballroom. Senate Vice President Lowell Bowditch will moderate the forum and ASUO Campus Outreach Coordinator Hilary Arakaki will make opening statements followed by presentations from President Dave Frohnmayer, geography professor Alec Murphy, history professor Daniel Pope, and senate president Greg McLauchlan.

APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES

Minutes from the December 4, 2002 senate meeting were approved as distributed.

STATE OF THE UNIVERSITY

Remarks from President Dave Frohnmayer. President Frohnmayer referred to his recent (January 8, 2003) winter term letter to faculty and staff, saying he would briefly highlight some aspects of his letter (see http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~uosenate/dirsen023/Frohnmayer8Jan03.html). He noted that everyone has a stake in the January 28th election and encouraged all to vote. Remarking about changes in state government leadership (new Governor Kulongoski and new state of Oregon Senate President Courtney) and the upcoming special election, he felt it was too early to speculate on a budget, but that it was not likely higher education would receive any enhancement of funds. Governor Kulongoski's budget is "bare bones" but is not a final budget at this point.

The president then spoke of OUS's major legislative initiative, the Partnership with Oregon (previously called The Deal). He indicated that other OUS institutions and the State Board of Higher Education endorsed the initiative. A significant number of legislators are expected to be co-sponsors. The Partnership With Oregon is important to the university in terms of survivability because, among other things, it would provide greater flexibility in funding. It is an extension of recommendations made by the Governor's Task Force on Higher Education and the Economy under Governor Kitzhaber several years ago (see http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~uosenate/dirsen023/Partnership.pdf for full text).

Shifting to another topic of interest, President Frohnmayer had no definitive information to offer regarding the current deficits facing the Public Employees Retirement System (PERS). A governor appointed task force is in place studying the situation. All 1,600 local governments in the state are under a coalition engaged in negotiation with PERS and the state government. The governor hopes to have a conclusion by the end of the legislative session, but the contours of what the settlement might be are not known at this time. Providing some insight about eventual outcomes is Judge Lipscomb's finding that the PERS Board acted improperly in several areas including allocation funds to retirement accounts (see text of Judge Lipscomb's decision on the PERS website at http://www.pers.state.or.us).

During a question and answer period, Senate President McLauchlan asked if retirement changes in PERS will affect current employees. President Frohnmayer cited Judge Lipscomb, saying the PERS resolution could be retroactive and/or it could reach to the period of time of the lawsuit brought by the plaintiffs (local governments). The PERS Board may not have the ability to make those decisions.

Budget and enrollment update from Provost John Moseley. Provost Moseley began his briefing by noting that current enrollment is consistent with past experience and does not reflect a negative reaction to the current budget cuts or the possible 10% tuition surcharge if Measure 28 does not pass in the January 28th special election. The provost expressed his appreciation to the faculty for heroic efforts in serving the record number of students at the UO in spite of record budget cuts. The university has successfully avoided cuts to instructional programs. He added that although next year's admission qualification requirements have been raised significantly, record numbers of applications are being submitted. The provost noted that enrollment must be carefully managed to a number that reasonably correlates with state funding received. He indicated that this year's budget will be balanced whether Measure 28 passes or not; if the measure fails, there will be some further cuts but not to educational programs the UO is committed to program access for students. Instead, reserves will be used and surcharges will be necessary. Because of an additional $1.6 million cut announced in December 2002 and imposed in January 2003, an additional $2 or $3 surcharge in spring term may be needed to balance the budget. However, if enrollment holds, the additional surcharge may be avoided.

The provost also spoke about progress made over the past several years to improve UO faculty salaries to 95% of the average salary of peer institutions. Progress toward the Senate Budget Committee's White Paper goals has been significant, but with budget cuts this year's hoped for 6% salary increase will be changed to 3% for instructional faculty effective February 1, 2003. He remarked that in light of the financial crisis the state is facing, any increase in salary is positive, and added that the governor has spoken of a salary freeze for the next biennium. The provost suggested that there would not be state funds in the next biennium's state budget to use for salary increases. Finally, the provost pointed out that the level of state funding for the cell values in the Resource Allocation Model budget proposed by the governor is only 65% of the level of peer institutions. The funding difference will have to be made up by the university through entrepreneurial creativity. Within the context of the state budget and projected revenues, the provost commented that Governor Kulongoski treated higher education fairly compared to other state agencies. Provost Moseley concluded by saying that the university will work hard to manage enrollment and costs and to continue to provide our students with the kind of education they should expect when they come to the University of Oregon.

During a question and answer period the provost was asked if an employee's benefits were not currently funded in full by the university, would the cuts mentioned in the governors budget then be deferred to that employee's salary? He responded, yes; the governor's budget does not include funds that the UO will certainly be required to pay as our share of making up that deficit. The difference is about the same amount as a 3% salary increase. Healthcare costs continue to rise. The UO anticipates having adequate funding to educate students at the level of quality expected, but will not have an adequate amount of funding to allow for anticipated salary increases, PERS reparations, health benefits, and so forth. Provost Moseley indicated that everyone would be participating in the budget cuts in some manner. Nevertheless, the provost reaffirmed that the university remains committed to improving salaries of all employees to a reasonable level in comparison to peer groups.

Remarks from Rachel Pilliod, ASUO president, on the January 28th special election. President Pilliod reported on the ASUO's 'Get Out The Votes' effort happening campus wide for the next week and a half to energize and involve students regarding the importance of the upcoming ballot measure vote. ASUO's goal is to inform students of states issues, particularly in relationship to higher education, and to provide easy access to for casting their ballot.

Preview of 2003-04 Oregon Legislative Session. Mr. Tim Black, governmental affairs, gave a brief overview of the Office of Governmental Affairs operation (see http://oga.uoregon.edu). Mr. Black directed attention to the State Legislative Priorities 2003 document distributed recently to members of the senate (see http://oga.uoregon.edu/legpriorities03.pdf). The document begins with a statement from President Frohnmayer that higher education is at a crossroads, and further that the status quo of the university is not working. State funding continues to go down as enrollment continues to go up, and this biennium will determine whether the incongruities will get better or worse. Mr. Black said that the priorities document was presented to legislators to give them a sense of what is happening at UO. The document contains a wealth of information regarding the Resource Allocation Model (RAM), percentage of the UO budget from the state (about 17%), numbers of higher education students in Lane County (highest in the state), and projected numbers of high school graduates affecting higher education enrollment growth in the future. This year, the university enrolled 1,000 more students than last year but received no additional state funding for them, thus reflecting the lowest per student funding ratio in the PAC-10.

A recent report (see http://www.uoregon.edu/newscenter/econstudy.html) conducted by Professor Larry Singell, economics, delineates the economic impact of the university on the state and community. Mr. Black indicated the report has been helpful in providing a clear picture of the university's importance and value to the state. Among other statistics, the reports shows a 10 to 1 return to the state for every dollar invested in the UO for state allocations of about $71 million dollars, there is approximately $703 million in expenditures. The university is the largest employer in Lane county and 18th largest in the state. Based on census data, the higher the academic degree, the higher the salary and the less likelihood for unemployment. It is also important to note that in difficult financial times, options available to business, such as reducing the work force, cutting production, or lowering product quality, are not reasonable options for higher education: less student access and lower quality education are not acceptable choices.

Mr. Black spoke specifically about the Partnership with Oregon saying that it is a system wide effort. The chancellor wants the RAM to be increased 8% this year, and if the state can not adequately fund the RAM, the universities must have the tools to do so as suggested in the Partnership plan, that is, have the ability to increase non-state revenues (including tuition, foundation funds, financial aid, etc.), operate more efficiently; and become more entrepreneurial.

Other legislative priorities are capital projects, including an effort this session to change the General Obligation bonds' ("g-bonds") 50/50 match, requiring the upfront capital of 50% of the project, to 25/75 match, thus reducing by half the amount of capital needed upfront. The UO planning office maintains the list of priority capital projects. The governor, historically, does not include these projects in his budget requests, which necessitates lobbying for individual projects depending on how many funds are left. An example from last year is the successful lobbying for the School of Music's expansion project. There are other bonding strategies (e.g., f-bonds), but currently, any type of capital funding requires authorization from the state. The Partnership plan would not require state authorization for capital projects if state funding was not used.

Other priorities include the Engineering Technology Industry Council (ETIC). OUS has a $40 million request for funding with $3.4 million of that for UO projects. Similarly, the priorities document supports some recommendations developed by the Oregon Council for Knowledge and Economic Development (OCKED), the most important of which is the development of three fully funded and operational signature research centers. And finally, the university supports the efforts of the Oregon Student Assistance Commission regarding financial aid, specifically by increasing aid through the Oregon Opportunity Grant and reinstating $1 million of the Student Block Grant that was eliminated for 2002-2003. Mr. Black concluded his presentation by reminding the senators that the legislative session is just beginning and the governor's budget is only a starting point for ongoing discussions and negotiations.

During the question and answer period, Senator Michael Russo, business, asked if the university is losing money by bringing in more students than the state will fund, and if so, should the enrollment policy be reevaluated? Provost Moseley responded that the question was not an easy one to answer when balancing the overall budget. He stated that the university keeps tuition dollars from students that we have enrolled and for which we have not received state funding. Those dollars, by and large, are allocated back to departments with the extra students. But tuition does not cover other educational and administrative costs. Setting higher admission requirements is a result of reevaluating enrollment policy. If the UO becomes a smaller institution, it will be a result of the state's decision not to fund at sufficient levels, and not a result of the university offering less of an education.

Mr. Black outlined the current committee assignments in the state legislature and noted the unusual circumstance of an evenly divided senate. When asked for a general outline of what the legislation related to the Partnership with Oregon would entail, Mr. Black gave an example of a building sale near the PSU campus that fell through because the bureaucracy of the state system was so slow the sale defaulted to another buyer. Currently, contracting must go through the state system; but OUS believes it should not have to if state funds are not used. The proposed legislation would permit more flexibility for each campus and more campus authority to expand or create academic programs without going through the state system. Provost Moseley added that the state contributes less than 18% to the cost of the system, but controls it 100%. He believes each campus should control such matters of efficiency locally.

Report from Interinstitutional Faculty Senate. The report from the Interinstitutional Faculty Senate was delayed until the February 2003 senate meeting.

NEW BUSINESS

Motion US02/03-2 to amend student membership on the Library Committee. Library Committee chairman Daniel Pope moved to amend the status of the 2 student members on the committee to include one undergraduate and one graduate student. The change is intended to insure that both student perspectives and constituencies are represented. The motion is to change the legislation to read: Student membership on the University Library Committee shall consist of one undergraduate student and one graduate student.

In discussing the motion, Senator Eric Bailey, ASUO spoke in favor of the motion saying that he previously served as one of two undergraduate students on the committee and that he agreed the perspective of a graduate student would have been useful. Hearing no other discussion, President McLauchlan put the question. Motion US02/03-2 passed unanimously by voice vote.

Confirm replacement member for the Committee on Committees. Vice President Lowell Bowditch, chair of the Committee on Committees, ask for a vote to elect William Ryan, journalism and communications, to fill the remaining term of a recently created vacancy on the committee. With no other discussion, the senate voted to elect Mr. Ryan to fill the vacancy for the remainder of the year..

Motion US02/03-3 to convene a meeting of the University Assembly. President McLauchlan reported that Senator Julie Novkov, political science, had given notice to present a motion for the senate to call a meeting of the University Assembly to discuss the Iraq situation. The motion reads:

Pursuant to the authority invested in the Senate by the Senate charter, paragraph 6, section 3, the University Senate hereby calls for the convention of the University Assembly. The Senate hereby directs the assembly to discuss the impending threat of military action in Iraq. The assembly shall meet as soon as it conveniently can be arranged but not before January 21, 2003 or after February 15, 2003.

After assuring that a quorum was present, President McLauchlan reminded everyone that a 2/3 vote of the senate was required to call a meeting of the University Assembly, and that the assembly would have no legislative power. The motion was moved and seconded and the floor opened for discussion.

Senator Novkov explained that the intent of the motion is to offer an opportunity for senators to address the Iraq issue as individuals, not as senate representatives, which was a concern of some senators during the December senate meeting. Also, the assembly would not be represented as the voice of the University of Oregon.

Senator Dave Soper, physics, asked for clarification of the enabling legislation regarding the powers of the assembly. President McLauchlan replied that the assembly is empowered to meet with full legislative power if 33% of the voting faculty that is, the faculty eligible to vote for senate representatives signs a petition requesting it. A non-legislative assembly can be called into session by a 2/3 vote of the senate, at the request either the senate president or president of the university, or, by a petition signed by 10% of assembly members (which consists of officers of instruction, officers of administration, librarians, Emeriti faculty, and 48 student government members). The secretary further explained that when faculty governance was reorganized several years ago, former system of governance was abolished and the University Senate was designated as the legislative body on campus rather than the University Assembly. The only way the assembly can be convened with full legislative power is if 33% of the voting faculty (essentially, the .5FTE or greater tenured related faculty and officers of administration) sign a petition stating the reason for calling the special assembly. Such a petition currently is being circulated regarding the impending war with Iraq.

There was some question as to whether the two types of assemblies, if called, could be merged into one assembly meeting (presumably with full legislative power). Parliamentarian Paul Simons noted that the enabling legislation does not address this issue specifically. The signature petitions currently being circulated around the university will determine whether or not the assembly will have legislative power. The secretary is in the process of compiling a list of assembly members.

Senator Carl Bybee, journalism and communication, expressed concern that many faculty members feel the Iraq situation is appropriate for discussion but believe the petition for legislative power is a separate issue. Senator Maram Epstein, East Asian languages, asked Mr. Frank Stahl, professor emeritus in biology and primary proponent of the circulating petitions, why there was a need for a petition to bring the original Iraq motion (deemed not in the purview of the senate) back to the senate when the petition for an assembly with legislative power would supersede it. Mr. Stahl responded that the two petitions afford maximum efficiency in promoting the cause of the original motion.

Senators questioned the need for a quorum, as they have not always required one in former assembly meetings. Parliamentarian Simons replied that the state's open meeting law now requires a quorum for all public governing bodies, which was a primary factor instigating the restructuring of faculty governance in 1995. A regular assembly meeting would not require a quorum since it was not a governing body; an assembly meeting with full legislative power would required a quorum for a vote to be taken on a resolution or motion.

It was suggested if there is not legislative authority for the proposed motion to call a regular, non- legislative assembly meeting, the Senate Executive Committee should call a Town Hall meeting instead. Senator Novkov responded that there is different level of university significance between the two bodies. She felt it was important to have a body of university affiliated participants meeting as peers to encourage or discourage individual action without the responsibility of representing the university as a governing body of elected representatives. Mr. Stahl added that the assembly meeting proposed in the motion may not be legislatively empowered, but attendees might take it upon themselves to sign a recommendation to the senate to reconsider its December 2002 vote on whether the Iraq resolution was within the senate's purview.

Mr. Linman called the question. Motion US02/03-3 to call a meeting of the University Assembly prior to February 15, 2003 to discuss the Iraq situation passed by hand vote, 22 in favor, and 7 opposed.

President McLauchlan indicated that he would inform President Frohnmayer of the motion and would inform the senate of the meeting date and location as that information became known (note: the University Assembly meeting was held January 31st from 3:00 to 5:00 p.m. in 180 PLC).

OPEN FORUM

Many senators questioned what the assembly meeting would be like, who organizes it, and what responsibilities, if any, the senate members have. President McLauchlan reiterated that President Frohnmayer chairs assembly meetings and, as in the senate, if it were a legislative assembly Robert's Rules of Order would apply. President McLauchlan will meet with Senator Novkov to discuss agenda recommendations.

It was suggested that the assembly might work on a resolution regarding the UO's response to the Iraq situation, and that senators submit suggested resolutions before the meeting. Some senators voiced opinions that such a resolution would make the senate weaker by circumventing it. Other senators were concerned about the significance of individual opinions being perceived as a single, university voice rather than as voices of individuals. Classified staff senate representatives wondered how they might have a voice in the assembly.

President McLauchlan concluded the discussion by noting that he would further investigate the guidelines of the different assemblies pertaining to making and voting on resolutions. However, he noted that President Frohnmayer is the governing officer of the assembly, and as such, has the final say regarding how votes shall be publicized and constituted. Further, President Frohnmayer has made his view clear that he would not regard the opinions of individuals speaking at an assembly as an official voice of the university.

ADJOURNMENT

President McLauchlan adjourned the meeting at 5:05 p.m.

Gwen Steigelman Secretary