OpEd submitted to the Emerald

Frank Stahl

October 8, 2004

On Wednesday, October 13, the University Senate will debate and vote on a motion designed to maintain the role of the faculty in university governance.  At stake is the survival of the UO Assembly's oversight function.  Let me summarize the events that created the necessity for such
a motion.

In the past, the democratic ideal of governance at the UO made our campus a beacon for the best faculty in the nation.  The Assembly was the University's governing body and its members were the professors, as prescribed by the University Charter.  Attendance at Assembly meetings was
expected, and was encouraged by a University-wide prohibition of conflicting class schedules. In subsequent years, however, several decisions reduced the effectiveness of the Assembly, leading eventually to its demise as the primary governing body.

In 1974, 18 students were added to the Assembly, and in 1984, Assembly membership grew further with the addition of numerous University employees who are not professors.  About this time, the prohibition on Wednesday afternoon classes was lifted, diminishing the likelihood that the Assembly could routinely comply with the 1974 Oregon Public Meeting Law, which requires that the governing body of a public institution can take action only if 50% (plus one) of its members are in attendance.

Partly for this reason, in May 1995, the Assembly adopted the "Senate Enabling Legislation", thereby relinquishing its governance role to the Senate, which now operates as a body that represents the Assembly. However, recognizing the need for a mechanism by which mistakes of this representative body could be rectified, the Assembly retained for itself a role of oversight.

The framers of the Senate Enabling Legislation specified several conditions under which the Assembly, presided over by the University President, shall convene, including one that allows the Assembly to act with full legislative power.  Clearly, the framers understood both the
importance of the Assembly as the University's most democratic body, and the importance of setting the bar for Assembly action so high that it could be cleared only for matters of great concern.   Thus, full legislative power was granted to the Assembly only if requested by petition of 33% of those members eligible to vote for non-student Senators ("the Voting Faculty" of about 1500 Assembly members).

Already in 1995, it would have been a serious challenge to convene an Assembly with legislative power attended by a quorum of members.  The Senate Enabling legislation defined the Assembly as consisting of the Officers of Instruction (including Emeritus Professors) and Officers of Administration (including librarians), and 48 Students.  Eleven months after the Senate Enabling Legislation became effective, however, the UO Administration declared that the 250-member "Managerial Staff" (composed of secretaries, maintenance personnel, cooks and others with some managerial responsibilities) would henceforth be considered Officers of Administration. By this decree, the UO Administration granted Assembly membership to these newly declared Officers of Administration, even though it is unclear whether they fit the definition of Assembly members as understood by the framers of the Enabling Legislation. This enlargement of the Assembly further endangered its ability to exercise its oversight function. Nevertheless, on one occasion, the Assembly was called by petition. This action, in the Spring of 2003, depended on the confluence of three factors: (1) In the Winter of 2002-3, there was a widespread feeling in the University Community that the UO Senate, after careful consideration (and, perhaps, of necessity), had made a decision that did not best serve the University.  (2) Some members of the University Community had both the conviction and the time to seek the signatures that would empower the Assembly to debate and vote on the issue.  (3) Such a large fraction of the faculty desired an opportunity to vote on the issue that the more than 500 required signatures were obtainable from the eligible voters who could be contacted.  Conditions such as these will not
arise often.

In the event, the Assembly was unable to address the issue for which it had been called -- it failed to gather the required quorum of 1000-plus members.  The causes for this failure can be argued, but one point is beyond argument -- the President of the University failed in his duty as Chair of the Assembly to take steps that might have enabled a quorum.  In particular: (1) The President set the meeting time for Friday afternoon (a time when many folks have left campus for other obligations). (2) The President failed to appeal to the faculty to fulfill their responsibility to University governance by attending the meeting. (3) The President made no provision for participation by Assembly members who are stationed in remote places, such as Portland and Bend. (4) The President declined to close offices and call off classes, effectively disenfranchising many Assembly members.

Most discouragingly, the UO Faculty Handbook, produced by the UO Administration to inform the faculty of its rights and duties, described seven conditions under which the Assembly will meet, but omitted (until September 8 of this year) any mention of the only meeting of substantive
significance -- the one that is called by 33% of the Voting Faculty and has "full legislative power".

These developments show disdain on the part of the Administration for the University’s governance document and, indeed, for the democratic process of government.  They also indicate that Assembly oversight can be restored only if the UO Senate prescribes specific steps to facilitate the rare Assemblies called by 33% of the Voting Faculty.

At its first meeting of the 2004-5 academic year (in Room 207 Chapman Hall at 3:00 PM on October 13), the Senate will decide on the merits of such steps. The motion is being offered in the belief that the University can hold the respect of the public only if it operates according
to the law and to its own rules.  Opposition to the motion is expected.