Present: H. Alley, L. Bowditch, F. Cogan, K. Day, C. Ellis, G. Epps, S. Eyster, L. Freinkel, F. Gearhart, P. Gilkey, J. Harding, S. Haynes, C. Lachman, L. Lindstrom, E. Luks, W.A. Marcus, C. McNelly, K. McPherson, D. Pope, G. Psaki, L. Robare, G. Sayre, K. Sheehan, M. Shirzadegan, E. Singer, D. Sinha, L. Skalnes, C. Sundt, N. Tublitz , J. Wagenknecht, L. Wellman, M. Woollacott
Excused: K. Kennedy, P. Keyes, M. Russo
Absent: L. Alpert, A. Berenstein, C. Bybee, R. Graff, M. Holland, J. Hurwit, B. Larson, S. Lockfield, A. McLucas, M. Raymer, P. Scher, B. Shively, B. Strawn, M. Wilson
CALL TO ORDER
The regular meeting of the University Senate was called to order at 3:05 p.m. in 182 Lillis by Senate President Lowell Bowditch.
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES
Minutes from March 10, 2004 meeting were approved as distributed.
STATE OF THE UNIVERSITY
Update on Events at the State Board Meeting. John Moseley, Senior Vice President and Provost, explained that changes in the State Board of Higher Education membership and activities are moving it in a positive direction. The board is now speaking directly with university presidents and leadership to solicit information. They are committed to the concept of a state supported higher education system and, in turn, agree universities must be given more flexibility to handle their internal operations.
The board structure has changed significantly with the resignation of the chancellor. In the interim, Jon Yunker has been appointed Executive Vice Chancellor and Chief Operating Officer. Provost Moseley gave a brief update on each of the newly formed State Board Committees.
The Budget Redesign Committee has made decisions regarding how the budget will be constructed, built and presented. Each institution will be presenting and defending their budget based on outcomes, peer comparisons, and cost based budgeting. In addition, the new methodology used will enable universities to compare their budgets more specifically with peer institutions. The new methodology is more specific to each institution and is data driven.
The President's Council is addressing possible monies designated for salaries increases. There may be an OUS fighting fund available for a limited number of faculty. This is only a first step into addressing faculty retention issues.
The More Better Faster Committee, chaired by Gretchen Schutte, president of Chemeketa Community College, is addressing increased articulation between institutions that should lead to easier transferability and a better understanding of common core curriculum. There is discussion of additional credit programs available in high school, shortened time to degree, and an increase in the numbers of programs used for student retention.
The Excellence and Economic Development Committee is developing three to five major initiatives that are economic development related such. The ultimate goal is to obtain as much money as possible to use toward basic educational services. This committee has also discussed new capital projects and so far, all UO projects planned are moving forward. This committee also held an in-depth discussion regarding tuition, which included student input. Although students opposed plateau elimination, there was a strong argument to move away from it.
Lastly, the Access and Affordability Task Force is focused on obtaining more money for student scholarships from non-general fund sources.
Update on the PERS Benefits Situation. Helen Stoop, Human Resources Benefits Administrator, reported that currently there are several legal challenges to the changes in the PERS Benefit System. Issues being challenged include:
Ms. Stoop commented that local and state governments feel reforms are needed to rein in costs of the program. On the other hand, representatives of state workers and retirees impacted adversely by the legislated changes believe they are unconstitutional violations of employee contract rights. These challenges are currently on the "fast track" to the Oregon Supreme Court. The specifics are included in a special masters written report which was released April 8, 2004. The Supreme Court has scheduled oral arguments for July 30, 2004 and a decision is expected by the end of 2004 or early 2005.
The challenges are directly related to the Judge Lipscomb decision in which the PERS board adopted a settlement agreement in a Eugene case. The original Lipscomb ruling was that the contingency reserve was not adequate, and the employer should not match the variable contribution. In addition, the decision noted that implementation of new mortality tables was necessary and it reversed the PERS decision to allocate the bulk of the 1999 earnings.
In the final settlement, the legislature passed reforms that corrected each issue with the exception of the variable match. Instead, PERS adopted a new temporary rule at the April 12, 2004 meeting, which included a different calculation of the variable match. By June 10, 2004 PERS may choose to adopt this as a permanent rule; if so, it will become effective July 1, 2004.
Ms. Stoop provided the following overview of the PERS changes:
PERS
Ms. Stoop added that two meetings will be held to discuss the PERS benefits changes: Friday, May 7th from 1:00 to 3:00 p.m. in the EMU Fir Room, and Monday, May 10th from 3:00 to 5:00 p.m. in the EMU Fir Room.
STANDING COMMITTEE REPORTS
Student Conduct Committee and Notice of Motion. Chris Loschiavo, chair of the Student Conduct Committee reported that the committee has been working to update the conduct code to bring it in line with current trends and best practices. He gave notice that such changes were being vetted and motions would come to the senate through fall, winter, and spring terms for academic year 2004-05. Jessie Harding, ASUO and the student chair of the committee, advised that the mission statement has been changed to reflect the current institutional outlook concerning conduct and community concerns. In addition, jurisdictional issues have been addressed especially regarding jurisdiction of off-campus incidents. The committee reviewed peer institutional practices and other states' legislation. The conclusion reached was the Student Conduct Code would apply: if the conduct adversely affects the environment conducive to learning, and the conduct would violate code if it occurred on campus, and the conduct was violent or produced fear for harm, and the victim is a member of the campus community, its effects, documents, or any other items owned by the university. In addition, the committee will recommend that students be appointed for two-year terms and faculty terms be extended to three years. All changes are provided in a working document available from the Office of Student Judicial Affairs.
The floor was opened for discussion. Senator Lisa Freinkel, English, asked how sexual assault jurisdiction falls in the proposed changes. Mr. Loschiavo replied that the intent was to make it parallel with laws now in place regarding sexual assault, eventually leading to an overall, "umbrella" code. Responding to a question from Senator Nathan Tublitz, biology, regarding the legality of extending jurisdiction beyond campus, Mr. Loschiavo explained there is no legal precedent or case law that says this is not permissible.
Senator Frances Cogan, Honors College, asked how the Student Conduct Code interlinks with regular law enforcement and criminal prosecution. Mr. Loschiavo said it is a supplement to the community criminal process. The code's focus is not solely to punish offenders, but also to help those for whom it applies to learn from their mistakes. The rights of the accused are treated similarly to the rights afforded individuals in a criminal proceeding. He noted that this issue is currently being reviewed.
Senate President thanked the committee for their work and asked that any additional questions be forwarded to Mr. Lochiavo for response.
Distinguished Service Award. The senate moved into Executive Session to hear this report from Mr. Dave Hubin, committee chair.
ANNOUNCEMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE FLOOR.
The secretary reminded members of the senate that nominations for university elected committees and the senate are due on Friday, April 16th. She encouraged senators to personally contact individuals they wished to nominate for various positions. Nominations are posted at http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~uosenate/dirsen034/nominate034.html. President Bowitch also encourage faculty to take the call for nominations seriously. Voting will be held on-line via DuckWeb from April 26th - May 7th.
Senator and IFS President Peter Gilkey announced that a meeting concerning the Optional Retirement Program (ORP) will be held April 28th from 3:00 to 5:00 p.m. in 182 Lillis.
NEW BUSINESS
Notice of Motions. Several Notice of Motions were given. Deborah Baumgold, chair of the Undergraduate Council gave notice for a motion to amend existing senate legislation concerning criteria governing group-satisfying courses in the general education requirement. The proposed motion is the result of the Undergraduate Council review reported to the senate in 2003. (See (http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~uosenate/dirsen034/US034-8.html.)
President Bowditch announced that she had received notice of motions to add two classified staff positions to the Intercollegiate Athletic Committee, and on classified staff position to the University Library Committee, supported by senate classified staff participants Carla McNelly, Lexy Wellman, and Ed Singer, and which will be moved by Senate Vice President Andrew Marcus (See http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~uosenate/ dirsen034/US034-11.html and http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~uosenate/dirsen034/US034-12.html, respectively.)
President Bowditch also noted she had received notice of motion submitted by Mr. Frank Stahl, biology, to help enable the University Assembly to achieve a quorum and convene with legislative authority (see http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~uosenate/dirsen034/US034- 10.html).
Motion US03/04-9 on the UO policy statement regarding subpoenas of student records. Speaking as chair of the Ad Hoc Committee on Student Records, Senator Gilkey, mathematics, explained that the committee crafted a policy statement indicating the University of Oregon regards the privacy of student records as essential (see http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~uosenate/dirsen034/US034-9.html). The proposed policy statement instructs that when served with a subpoena requesting student records, faculty members, staff, and students should seek the opinion of general counsel before responding. The policy language was drafted with great care; the committee feels it is clear. Members of the Faculty Advisory Council reviewed and endorsed the policy as well.
The floor was opened for comment and debate. However, having been well vetted by the committee with input and comments from interested faculty and students beyond the committee, the motion received no other comments or further debate. Motion US03/04-9 was put to a vote and was passed unanimously by voice vote. The policy statement will be forwarded to the president of the university with a request to promulgate the policy.
Motion US03/04-7 on the reduction of credit hours needed to fulfill group requirements. Undergraduate Council chair Deborah Baumgold brought the following motion to the floor on behalf of the council: Moved to, Allow students to fulfill a UO group requirement for the B.A. and B.S. degrees with coursework totaling 15 instead of 16 credits, given that their coursework fulfills the UO's breadth and depth requirements within Groups. Ms. Baumgold explained that, as stated in the motion, the number of credits needed to fulfill group requirements is proposed to be reduced from 16 credit hours to 15 credit hours, provided that the relevant coursework fulfills the UO's breadth and depth requirements within the group. She commented on the difficulty of transfer-in credit requirements for transfer students. This issue has generated a substantial workload of appeals to the Academic Requirement Committee and has raised issues of fairness. The motion will help increase articulation between the UO and community colleges transfer students. She noted further that the change would have no impact on students who spend their entire academic career at the UO, as they would continue to fulfill the requirements with four 4-credit courses.
Senator Malcolm Wilson, classics, expressed strong support for the motion, drawing from his experience during two years of service on the Academic Requirements Committee. He said he observed inconsistent treatment of transfer students credit and this led to difficulty and confusion on the part of staff and students when interpreting what is expected.
When asked when the proposed change would be implemented and if it would apply to past students, Ms. Baumgold replied that the change would be effective immediately with students being grandfathered into the new requirements. Senator Christine Sundt, AAA library, questioned the need to require exactly 15 credits instead of a range of credits, such as 15 to 16 credits. Ms. Baumgold responded that the council had discussed the issue at some length and felt it would be dealt with via implementation. Senator Tublitz suggested adding "transfer" in front of "students" in the motion's first line, but Ms. Baumgold countered that the council did not want to include language specific only to transfer students. University Registrar Herb Chereck confirmed that there are no group satisfying courses that would allow students enrolled at the UO for their entire academic experience to take 15 instead of 16 credits and still satisfy the group requirements. Although there may be special circumstances, they would be an exception to the rule.
With no further discussion, Motion US03/04 -7 was put to a vote and passed unanimously by voice vote.
Motion US03/04-6 to petition the Oregon Congressional Delegation to seek relief from the USA Patriot Act. The motion, sponsored by Mr. Gordon Lafer, LERC, was moved and brought to the floor as follows: BE IT RESOLVED THAT the University of Oregon University Senate calls upon the Oregon Congressional Delegation to promote the first amendment rights, privacy rights, and traditional civil, intellectual, academic and political liberties of the University Community by seeking appropriate revision of those sections of the PATRIOT Act and other related Orders or provisions of law that impose unjustifiable burdens on these rights and liberties. Senator Gina Psaki, romance languages, spoke in support of the motion saying that following the events September 11, 2001 much legislation was passed hastily that is now regreted. The USA Patriot Act contains sweeping provisions which rely on the public to trust the Justice Department not to abuse. Our political system is predicated on a system of checks and balances for accountability of our government, and the Patriot Act overlooks such a system. Senator Psaki recalled much of the discussion during the recent informational panel discussion on the Patriot Act, referring particularly to the effects of the Patriot Act on faculty in the Office of International Programs. She noted that one faculty member indicated that her function in working with international students and faculty members had changed from an advocate and facilitator to a watchdog and government enforcer. The result of this change was a chilling effect on the visa process and collaborative working relationships with international scholars and students.
Senator Psaki concluded her comments saying that the resolution asked the Oregon Congressional Delegation to work toward revising the Patriot Act; by passing the motion, the senate would be taking a stand for academic freedom.
With no further comment or debate from the floor, Motion US03/04-6 was put to a vote passed by voice vote.
ADJOURNMENT
With no other business at hand, Senate President Bowditch adjourned
the meeting at 4:32 p.m.
Gwen Steigelman Secretary
ADDENDUM
Title: Statement on the University's Response to law enforcement subpoenas of Student Records.
Purpose: To provide the context and procedures by which University Employees respond to law enforcement subpoenas for Student Records.
The University of Oregon community regards the privacy of student records as a central and serious part of its academic mission. While privacy issues are governed by both state and federal law, the University's interest in privacy goes far beyond its commitment to comply with law. Privacy is an integral part of the academic freedom that is at the heart of the function of the modern University. Students, faculty and staff should be aware that the University supports their freedom to inquire, discuss and experiment with ideas without fear of improper government intrusion or public exposure. Though the University is supported by taxpayer funds, the mission of the University, as set out by the legal charter, centers on its autonomy as an academic institution governed by academic norms; that mission includes educating the larger community in the importance of academic freedom. Governmental initiatives may threaten some aspects of educational privacy. As a community, therefore, the University expresses its concern that, even during times of emergency, cooperation with law enforcement and political oversight of the University, while essential in a free society, should not go beyond the legitimate needs of outside bodies requesting information about University students, faculty and staff. Members of the faculty and the staff, in particular, should be aware that non-disclosure of confidential student information in response to outside inquiry by law enforcement or investigative agencies, except consistent with legal requirements, is the norm on this campus, and that the University will support all its members in their efforts to ensure that any request for records or information is submitted with proper authority and is no broader than is required by applicable law. Faculty and staff confronted with outside demands for information by law enforcement or investigative agencies must consult with the General Counsel's Office. Faculty and staff should in no case make any disclosure that has not been authorized by General Counsel's Office after examination of the justification for the demand. The General Counsel's Office will involve the President, to the extent permitted by law, in evaluating law enforcement subpoenas that impinge on traditional academic freedoms. Furthermore, the University recognizes that requests for information by outside agencies can raise difficult questions of conscience for those who have custody of confidential records. In no case will a specific member of the staff be required personally by the University to provide information in response to such inquiries when such personal compliance is not required by law. Compliance with information requests will be overseen by the office of the general counsel in accordance both with the law and with the norms of academic freedom, and the University will make every effort to provide information and support to the staff on the proper scope of their duties in this regard.
| Web page spun on 12 May 2004 by Peter B Gilkey 202 Deady Hall, Department of Mathematics at the University of Oregon, Eugene OR 97403-1222, U.S.A. Phone 1-541-346-4717 Email:peter.gilkey.cc.67@aya.yale.edu of Deady Spider Enterprises |