Excused: H. Alley, C. Bybee, C. Ellis, D. Pope, M. Raymer, P. Scher,

Absent: L. Alpert, S. Eyster, R. Graff, B. Larson, M. Shirzadegan, L. Skalnes,

CALL TO ORDER

Senate President Lowell Bowditch called the regular meeting of the University Senate to order at 3:05 p.m. in room 100 Willamette.

APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM THE JANUARY 14TH MEETING.

Minutes from the January 14, 2004 meeting were approved as distributed.

STATE OF THE UNIVERSITY

Update on Basketball Arena. President Frohnmayer reported that the basketball arena project has been placed on indefinite hold. He noted that donor solicitation and receipt of private gift dollars were needed at a level unprecedented for any project in the university's history. The president expressed gratitude for the many people who stepped forward to assist the university in the project. He felt that unless the university could be certain that funds would be available from whatever sources, and within reasonable bounds that would not otherwise jeopardize the university or the confidence of private donors, the project would not be moved forward. Consequently, after extensive review of the project, its scope, complexity, timing and financing, it became clear that the university is not able to move forward at this point.

President Frohnmayer cited several recent building projects that were evidence of the prudence and careful stewardship the university exercises as it prepares to undertake such large financial responsibilities: the Lillis business complex, the law school building, the soon-to-be completed Art Museum building, and the Autzen Stadium expansion. The president commented that the decision not to proceed with the basketball arena was reached after full consultation and agreement with the donors involved in the project. He also noted that a basketball facility is needed, and it is unlikely that we will be able to build a new arena at so low a cost as could have been done with the donors' generosity. He indicated that the university remains committed to the common goal of creating a premier facility for generations to come but for now the project is on indefinite hold.

Measure 30 update. President Frohnmayer explained that the failure of Measure 30 (the proposed temporary income tax increase measure) resulted in a $7.5 million reduction in the Oregon University System (OUS) budget. Preliminary figures prior to Measure 30's failure placed the UO's share of the financial obligation at approximately $2.5 million. But because of decisions made by the governor and reductions in statewide expenditures, our campus preliminary estimate was reduced to $1.8 million. Recently, however, the State Board of Higher Education indicated that the chancellor's office would bear the brunt of the Measure 30 reductions in order to protect the campuses in their essential instruction and research functions. Thus the amount of budget reductions for OUS campuses will be * of the total liability of OUS, which translates into a budget reduction for the UO of about $881, 000 fro the remainder of the biennium (Note: this reduction is in addition to budget reductions resulting from the 2003 legislative session.)

It is the governor's and board's intention not to have a tuition increase, and the university will not recommend instituting any kind of tuition surcharge for the balance of this year. Whether there will be tuition increases for next year is unknown at this point and is subject to the board's direction.

Ending his remarks, the president opened the floor for questions. Senator Malcolm Wilson, classics, asked if financial considerations were the only reason for postponing building an arena, and what shape might the project take in the future. The president responded that there were always worries about the funding stream as the estimated costs escalated. Bonds of $50 million were considered too steep and risky for the athletics department to undertake. He said that he did not know what shape the project might take in the future, but acknowledged that issues raised through the current experience would be re-visited, citing that a plethora of valuable insight and information was gleaned from the arena building process.

Comprehensive Campaign update and remarks on the development process. Vice President for Advancement Allan Price provided a brief status report on the Comprehensive Campaign, the priority setting process, current activities, and what we can expect to see moving forward in the next few months. The theme of the campaign is "Campaign Oregon -- Transforming Lives", which talks about how philanthropy, translated into investment in the university, helps transform lives. The goals of the campaign focus on campaign outcomes and monetary goals. First, one goal is to double the number of endowed faculty positions from the current 75 positions to 150 positions across the institution. The minimum endowment level for a professorship is $600,000 and for a named chair, $1.2 million. Second, a campaign goal is to create a significant new revenue source to fund scholarships and fellowships, with focus on undergraduate scholarship. A commitment has been made to raise $100 million toward this goal, which reiterates the Oregon Promise that states no otherwise qualified student will be turned away from the university because of an inability to afford it. He said that we want to be able to continue to recruit the best and brightest students by continuing to use Presidential and Dean's scholarships. A third goal is to provide significant new revenue to support academic programs, such as research programs, academic centers, outreach programs, and so forth. Lastly, the campaign will focus on building several new facilities that will be important in terms of programs reaching their potential and maintaining their standard of excellence.

Vice President for Academic Affairs Lorraine Davis added that one of the challenges in the campaign is to disseminate information about campaign status in a manner that will help build much needed momentum. She noted that information about gifts received would be announced at various times throughout the campaign. Vice President Price said with the overall campaign goal of $600 million, the UO is 1/3 of the way there, which is right in line with the trend predictions made at the campaign onset. The public kickoff for the campaign is scheduled for October 28th, 2004; by that time, the university should be at 40% of the campaign goal. He indicated that the campaign is approximately 1/3 of the way toward meeting the scholarship goal; athletics accounts for about 20% of the total dollars raised, and the remaining percentage is attributed towards academics.

Vice President Price remarked that the campaign approach is to engage donors who have passions about specific projects. With this in mind, 90% of the money raised will be "designated" money, that is, dependent on the donor base. An extraordinary number of special gifts have come in which will be announced in the next few months. Vice President Davis concluded the report by noting that the approximately 700 proposals submitted from faculty, representing $2 billion in ideas, will be available on the web for potential donors to review. Many proposals are contained in the university's Case Statement, as well as in each funding unit's individual Case Statement, containing particular proposals that have been highlighted. These proposals have been developed into a "tool kit" for development officers to be able to match up university needs with donors' interests.

Comments from the floor were complimentary about the progress made so far.

COMMITTEE AND OTHER REPORTS

Senate Ad-Hoc Committee on Student Records. In the interest of efficiency, Peter Gilkey, committee chair, passed out a written report and noted that the committee was drafting a policy statement regarding student records, especially regarding privacy issues. A policy statement will likely come before the senate at a future meeting (see http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~uosenate/dircom/DraftPolicy1a.html).

Update on legal action against OUS concerning the Optional Retirement Program (ORP). Bill Linden, Association of Oregon Faculties (AOF), began with a brief chronology of the dispute. In September 2003, Measure 29 passed which authorized the state to sell $2 billion worth of bonds to prepay Public Employee Retirement System (PERS) liabilities. Shortly afterward, the actuary that PERS retains issued a report recalculating contribution rates based on the $2 billion prepayment made. In November 2003, all members of the ORP received letters from OUS in which the contribution rates were reduced, for Tier 1 members, from 11.71% to 3.71%, and for Tier 2 members from 11.71% to 4.27%.

AOF began immediate correspondence with OUS Chancellor Jarvis to correct the rate reduction, and retained the Bennett Hartman law firm. In mid January 2004, an analysis was received from Bennett Hartman concluding that OUS acted incorrectly in reducing the ORP contribution by virtue of the passage and sale of the bonds. There is an administrative rule providing that those types of PERS payments shall be treated as "pre-funded contributions and additional assets for the payment of obligations of the employer rather than as a reduction in those obligations."

Mr Linden continued that an attempt was made to informally engage OUS in discussions, after which a demand letter was served to OUS Chancellor Jarvis requesting a response. A response was received from Ben Rawlins, OUS General Counsel, indicating that he was working on a resolution. The most recent information says a few more weeks will be needed to prepare a proposal the faculty will be able to assess. AOF's position is the rate should be fully restored to its November 1, 2003 level. He added that if OUS offers a rate reduced from the November 2003 level, their methodology would need to be very convincing.

A side issue is the chancellor's office proposing that legislation be introduced to uncouple the ORP contribution rate from the PERS contribution rate. The AOF does not support uncoupling of rates because they do not want to trade the calculation method used by PERS for an undefined process that would be under the auspices of the state board. The basis for the AOF's legal challenge involves statutes and OARs relating to PERS that provide the basis for rate reductions. Mr. Linden added that while AOF is awaiting the OUS response, a wage claim lawsuit is being prepared. If are any faculty interested in being a plaintiff, contact can be made through the AOF website http://www.oregonfaculties.org.

Peter Gilkey, mathematics, who also is president of the Interinstitutional Faculty Senate (IFS), advised that the IFS is very involved in the ORP issue and process, and that he met with chancellor office personnel on the issue (Denise Yunker). Additionally, the UO administration is also working hard to address these issues on behalf of the faculty.

Several comments were made regarding the source of the uncoupling effort and its impact. Mr. Linden opined that there are a number of ways the rates may be determined and at this point nothing is certain.

UNFINISHED BUSINESS

Motion US03/04-5 -- substitute motion of revisions to the Student Records Policy. A motion to bring the previously tabled Motion US03/04-5 (see http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~uosenate/dirsen034/US034-5old.html) to the floor was passed by voice vote. Once on the floor, a motion to substitute a revised version (see http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~uosenate/dircom/US034-5Doc1c.html) of the motion, proposed by the senate's ad hoc Committee on Student Records, was put before the senate for debate. The essence of substitute motion US03/04-5 is that

The University Senate recommends to the President that the Oregon Administrative Rules containing the Student Records Policy be amended to read as given below [underlined portions would be added to the current rules]. Furthermore that Faculty, staff and students will all be notified of the university's policies on responding to subpoenas. The Faculty Handbook will be revised to inform faculty that any subpoenas received should be submitted to the Office of the General Counsel so that legal counsel can assess their validity and advise the recipient how to respond. Faculty and staff should be reminded periodically of this policy through means such as articles in Inside Oregon, memos distributed in campus mail, and posting of the policy on relevant websites that exist or may be developed.

The University shall publish and distribute on an annual basis to students notice of their rights under the Student Records Policy. This information for students should include the fact that student records may be the subject of law enforcement subpoenas which forbid notification to the student whose records are subpoenaed. Students should also be informed that it is university policy to submit subpoenas to the Office of the General Counsel for evaluation of their validity. Such measures as discussion within the Student Handbook, advertisements in the Oregon Daily Emerald and postings on the Office of the Student Advocate and other relevant websites should be employed to keep students informed.

Further, that the following text be added to the end of OAR 571-020-0120 -- Location and Custody of Student Records:

If the University or a University employee is served with a law enforcement subpoena, whether or not that subpoena orders that the existence or the contents of the subpoena or the information furnished in response to the subpoena not be disclosed to the student, a copy shall be sent immediately to the Office of the General Counsel. No documents shall be released or information disclosed until University legal counsel determines that the subpoena is valid.

And the underlined text below added to OAR 571-020-0180 -- When Prior Consent Is Not Required for the Disclosure of Personally Identifiable Information from Education Records, under section 1. (c): The disclosure is to comply with a judicial order or lawfully issued subpoena and the University makes a reasonable effort to notify the student of the order or subpoena in advance of compliance so that the student may seek protective action. The following sentence is adopted effective December 10, 2003: If the disclosure is to comply with a federal grand jury subpoena or any other subpoena issued for a law enforcement purpose and the court or other issuing agency has ordered that the existence or the contents of the subpoena or the information furnished in response to the subpoena not be disclosed and University legal counsel has determined that the subpoena is valid, then the University shall not notify the student.

During the discussion, Mr. Frank Stahl, biology, asked if the amended OAR included a provision that secret subpoenas, which may be issued under the USA Patriot Act, would come to the attention of the president of the university. Mr. Gilkey responded that the committee considered this point at length and decided against inclusion of such wording. He noted that faculty members served with a subpoena have a right to legal counsel. It is not clear, however, that if served with a subpoena with a "gag" order, you would be permitted legally to contact the university president. Senator Garrett Epps, law, clarified by stating that there is nothing in the motion's language that would prevent the university president from being notified if that agrees with the requirements in the subpoena. Hearing no further discussion, Senate President Lowell Bowditch put the question to a vote. Substitute Motion US03/04-5 to amend the OARs on Student Records passed unanimously by voice vote. Senator Ben Strawn, ASUO, expressed his appreciation to the senate for the action taken and for their active concern for students in this matter.

NEW BUSINESS

Resolution US03/04-3 regarding athletics reform and the Coalition of Intercollegiate Athletics (COIA). Senate President Bowditch advised that the resolution before the senate contains a statement saying that the UO senate would join the Coalition of Intercollegiate Athletics (COIA) and endorses its framework for athletics reform document. She alluded to a January 2004 panel discussion, which discussed many of the reform areas suggested by the framework document, saying there had already been some discussion on this resolution. Resolution US03/04-3 reads as follows:

Moved that the University of Oregon University Senate join Coalition on Intercollegiate Athletics (COIA) and endorse its "Framework for Comprehensive Athletic Reform".

Senator Jim Earl, English, spoke to the resolution and confirmed that the discussion and vote on this resolution is part of a national process in which faculty senates across the country are participating in the debate on athletics reform. He reassured the senators that the resolution was not an attempt to cut, eliminate, or trim back college sports; rather it represents a movement which hopes to slow the rapid expansion of the budgets that drive intercollegiate athletics, and which would guarantee the future health of the intercollegiate athletic system. He continued that the resolution contains nothing that could be interpreted as obligatory for the university to change its practices. In fact, Senator Earl stated that the UO policies in intercollegiate athletics are exemplary and represent "best case" for the rest of the country.

Senator Earl explained that the framework document was created by faculty at 12 schools from 6 conferences and was vetted with every constituency that has a stake in intercollegiate athletics, including the NCAA, Association of Governing Boards, NAUCT, Association of Faculty Athletic Representatives, the National Association of Athletic Advisors, the Knight Commission, and leaders of the Athletic Director's Association. He stated that the COIA Resolution is an attempt to allow the UO and other schools around the country to express their concern and their support for a continuing healthy system of intercollegiate athletics.

Senator Kim Sheehan, member of the UO Intercollegiate Athletics Committee (IAC) was recognized to share viewpoints of the IAC about the resolution. The IAC supports the idea of athletic reform and, as a faculty committee, also supports the need to have a faculty voice in discussions with the NCAA. They believe that the athletics department and the academic units of the university share common goals, that is, the desire to bring best practices to all that we do, achieving excellence in all facets of work, and finding resources to support endeavors. However, although the overriding goals of athletics reform are valuable, important, and necessary, the IAC does not recommend the faculty join COIA at this time, and thus does not support the resolution.

Senator Sheehan enumerated several issues of concern to the IAC. First, there is a questionable organizational structure within COIA ? no legislative authority ? that could have long-term negative impact on the university. There is an unclear distinction between the COIA's goals and its tactics for achieving the goals. The IAC is hesitant to support an organization that recommends numerous tactics that would be (a) impossible to implement, or (b) in violation of current NCAA regulations, or (c) unfair to schools on the quarter system. Thus, a lack of understanding of the long-term repercussions of the framework document makes it difficult to support.

Second, there is significant duplication of efforts between the Athletics Governance Committee recommended by the COIA document and the other similar governance bodies on campus. It is unclear how this committee would be selected, what the term would be, and what types of mechanisms are in place that would make sure this committee truly represents the voice of all faculty members at the UO. Third, the COIA provides no definition of commercialization or over-commercialization, and it does not adequately acknowledge what the benefits and risks of commercialization of sports are on campus today.

Senator Sheehan concluded her comments saying that the IAC agrees the athletics department should follow best practices; and they recognize that Senator Earl and other COIA member believe we are a best practices organization. Nevertheless, two additional questions remain before the IAC would consider supporting COIA. First, will some of the COIA tactics address the larger concerns about athletics reform, or will they fracture the situation even more? And second, will joining the COIA help alleviate the frustrations Senator Earl expressed about recent practices of the university, or is there a way the senate can work together with the IAC to address individual concerns about today's athletics campus environment?

Senate President Lowell Bowditch opened the floor to further debate. Senator Jeffrey Hurwitz, art history, commented that he does not see either "tactics" or concrete proposals in the framework document; rather, there appears to be items of concern and discussion. In response, Senator Sheehan identified several examples of specific recommendations for universities to follow. Senator Earl clarified that the adoption of this framework does not oblige the UO to do anything. Further, commercialization and over-commercialization are not defined in the framework because the COIA wants to work together with various groups to define these concepts. Another senator suggested that the senate also should consider the repercussions of leaving themselves out of this national discussion.

Mr. Brad Shelton, mathematics and chair of the IAC, remarked that the IAC's recommendation was based on the framework document, which contains specific items that the IAC believes may be damaging to the university. For example, it specifically recommended that the IAC look into personnel athletic issues, which can only be interpreted as the IAC vetting the hiring and firing of coaches. The document also suggests the elimination of spring football. There should be consideration of the repercussions to the rest of the athletic department if spring football were to be eliminated. Mr. Shelton said the basic goals of the framework are very good, but it is the specific statements outlined in the framework, such as the examples given, that concern the IAC.

Senator Nathan Tublitz, biology, reminded the faculty they are not voting on legislation per se, but are voting on whether to join an organization that is asking for our faculty voice to discuss and become part of a national conversation on athletics reform. He noted that the "national conversation" began with the UO senate two years ago under then senate president Jim Earl's leadership.

Other opinions about the resolution were expressed by the co-president of the Student Athlete Advisory Committee, who noted concern with the framework's suggestion of eliminating the spring season of some sports. She believes athletics is a vehicle that brings academics to the community. And lastly, Senator Christine Sundt, library system, read a letter received from a student athlete that commented on how the student's academic career had suffered due to participation in athletics.

At this point, there was a successful motion to call the question. Resolution US03/04-3 regarding athletics reform and joining the Coalition of Intercollegiate Athletics (COIA) was passed by voice vote. (For full text of the framework document see http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~uosenate/dirsen034/US034-3.html.)

ADJOURNMENT

With no other business at hand, the meeting was adjourned at 5:05 p.m.

Gwen Steigelman Secretary