Minutes of the University Senate Wednesday, April 8, 2009


Present: D. Bloom, J. Bonine, C. Cherry, S. Chakraborty, L.-S. Chou, R. Colby, C. Ellis, A. Emami, D. Falk, L. Forrest, P. Gilkey, M. Henney, E. Herman, M. Jaeger, C. Jones, J. Lau, M. Latteri, K. Lenn, D. Levin, S. Libeskind, H. Lin, C. McNelly, D. Miller, T. Minner, C. V. Moore, D. Olson, S. Paul, E. Peterson, S. Plummer, M. Redford, R. Rejaie, J. Rowell, L. Stephen, T. Toadvine, P. van Donkelaar, L. Vanderburgh


Excused: C. Bengtson, J. Hurwit, L. Middlebrook, J. Piger, N. Tublitz


Absent: C. Gray, R. Illig, L.S. Morales, M. Myagkov, N. Rajabzadeh, A. Taylor, P. Walker





The regular meeting of the University Senate was called to order at 3:05 p.m. in 115 Lawrence by Senate President Paul van Donkelaar.




Minutes from the March 11, 2009 senate meeting were approved as distributed.




Remarks from University President Dave Frohnmayer. The president made only brief remarks to afford ample time for budgetary comments about the remainder of this and the next biennium (2009-2011) from Provost Jim Bean and a few remarks from incoming President Richard Lariviere. He announced a Town Hall meeting on the budget for Tuesday April 14th at 9AM in the EMU, and encouraged everyone who wishes to attend to do so. The president also acknowledged behind-the-scenes work by the general counsel’s office and Vice President Peter Gilkey, who brought attention to the issuances of the United States Department of Education in a 45 page set of regulations from the Federal government concerning the economic stabilization fund. This federal legislation has a “maintenance of effort” requirement to prior budget levels for the funding of higher education during this next 2 year term requirement for all the states that accepted dollars from the recent federal stimulus package, which amounts to approximately $500 million for Oregon. General Melinda Grier and Deputy Counsel Randy Geller have worked with state government to make that realization apparent before the State budgeting process closed. The president continued that the university will have made its formal presentation of higher education to state legislators by the end of April, but the budget process will not be closed until after the mid-May forecast. The revenue forecast raises a quandary with budget elements such as terms and conditions of appointments because overall appropriations for higher education may not be known until after faculty and staff have left campus for the summer. President Frohnmayer noted he was aware of the need for notification and maximum information to be given before events take place, which makes timely information difficult.


Remarks from incoming University President Richard Lariviere. Mr. Lariviere, who was on campus for several days doing preliminary work prior to becoming University President on July 1st, indicated that he was intimately familiar with the budget uncertainties President Frohnmayer alluded to in his remarks. His previous university (University of Kansas) is going through similar legislative budget cuts. He agreed with the importance of having as much communication among people in positions of responsibility as possible, and added that he admired the clarity of the messages coming from the administration on what are very confusing circumstances. Sensing that budget circumstance may well get worse, he pledged that going forward after July 1st he will sustain every part of the same transparency and communication. Mr. Lariviere said that senators are charged with the responsibility of representing significant aspects of the campus community, and we need to work together collectively to ensure that the university’s future comes through this difficult moment as strongly as possible. He suggested that a lot of sacrifice on the part of many people will be necessary, and there will be some political deals that cannot be thought about yet, but there is going to be a really rough period which will continue into the next legislative session. Mr. Lariviere said that it will take individuals' care, support, and your investment, without which little progress will be made. He concluded by thanking the faculty and staff assembled for creating a wonderful institution, a really remarkable place because of the quality of the people.


Budget Planning Update from Provost Jim Bean. The provost began his remarks saying that there were a number of rumors circulating regarding budget matters and he hoped to clarify things and separate fact from fiction. For the current biennium (ending June 30, 2009) the university is aware of $8.6 million in rescission money that the state allocated to the UO and that they now want back. About $3.7 million can be retrieved centrally, and about $2 million will be captured from the spring term tuition increase, which leaves $2.8million that must be found in the schools and colleges. Another means of re-capturing some funds is for unclassified staff to take voluntarily FTE reductions for the rest of this academic year. The provost said the voluntary FTE reduction idea was put forth to help reduce the deficit for two reasons: (1) there were requests from people who asked how they could participate and help to make up the deficit, and (2) the provost felt it was in the UO’s best interests to make the voluntary FTE reduction opportunity available. All of the funds that come from the voluntary salary rollbacks from faculty and staff in a particular school or college will be discounted from the cuts to be made in those same schools and colleges. Provost Bean said that each individual school and college has to best deal with their share of the necessary budget cuts, and he encouraged faculty and staff to make the voluntary FTE reductions. He noted that the next revenue forecast is due the middle of May; if the deficits are even larger than anticipated, some people think the extra money needed will be absorbed by the state’s rainy day fund.


The provost expressed belief that the next biennium budget situation is much less clear. The legislative fiscal office and State Board of Higher Education have been discussing a 30% budget reduction plan that would translate into $50 million in budget cuts for the UO campus alone. It remains uncertain whether the budget cuts for the next biennium will be that large because Oregon’s share of Federal Stimulus Package money stipulates maintenance of support issues for higher education that are still being worked out. Provost Bean says it is probable that the cuts would not be as high as 30%, but nevertheless, the university still has to go through budget planning in case it is. He noted that the state is losing about one-third of its revenues, and if the cuts are 30%, the university will need to have a much more serious talk about voluntary FTE reductions for the next year and about 5-10% cuts for schools and colleges. He explained that he does not want to get too deep into budget cut planning until now because of the uncertainty of what the budget will be.


The provost then spoke about dispelling some of the rumors surrounding the budget situation. The Register Guard newspaper suggested there may be 60% cuts to the Bach Festival, the Art Museum, and so forth. Those percentages did not come from the administration or the Chancellor’s office; rather, they began with action at the State Board. The university indicated that it wants to protect academic core – if there are 30% cuts, there will be larger cuts to public service activities (the university is not targeting them) as opposed to the academic core. The Chancellor’s office did look at our budget with and eye to reviewing anything having any public service dollars as a part of it. However, no decisions have been made on this. He said the really difficult issue is facing the timing issue (because the academic year is nearly over); there is a race to get information out before faculty leave, and a need to have organization in place over the summer months -- the budget planning committee, which includes faculty, deans, and OA’s -- and have a number of people to talk through things and how to deal with these cuts when they come forward.


The provost then went on to dispel rumors floating around. He addressed the perception that the university is administration heavy, and that reducing the administration would help ease the need for cuts by stating that the administrative cost per student FTE at the UO is 38% of the average of our peer institution comparators. The UO is one of the leanest administrative campuses in the US. He added that of the number of requests for new staff positions, he declined to fund 65 of them, so the UO is administratively lean, not heavy.


To the question that money could be saved by not funding the “Bend campus” the provost said that the UO does not have a “campus” in Bend – it offers only a few programs in Bend and those programs have a very strong financial structure and are in the black. They draw some faculty resources from Eugene, but for most part the programs offered in Bend have their own faculty who are supported entirely out the tuition the programs generate. Provost Bean commented that the UO could separate those programs from the OSU/Cascade campus and it would create a small profit. The State Board has indicated that the OUS/Cascades campus would be taking a larger cut than the rest of the OUS system institutions.


Regarding rumors about the costs of the UO in Portland, it was reported that the university spent $17 million there, to which the provost said that the UO did not develop the site – it was developed by a separate company which does renovations of old buildings. The company received economic development funds because of the White Stag building’s location in a neighborhood eligible for such funding. The company developed the site for a profit and they lease space to us and other tenants; we pass the lease costs to our tenants. He also noted that staff at the Portland site is not paid by schools and colleges that are supporting programs with tuition dollars. The provost indicated that the university put dollars in those programs, which brings the substance of a UO education to other segments of Oregon, and it was done very responsibly.




Annual Athletics Department Report by Athletics Director Pat Kilkenny. Director of Athletics Pat Kilkenny provided the following report regarding the status of the Athletics Department.


The Athletic Department strives to help the university fulfill its mission and promote its quality throughout the state and the nation. They continue their efforts to utilize athletic events and athletic broadcast coverage to recognize faculty excellence and programs of regional and national significance. The Athletic Department has collaborated on several projects over the course of the last year to engender interaction between the department and academic units, most notably with the College of Business (Mac Court Promotions Campaign) and the School of Law (Competition, Not Conflict Program). In addition, $100,000 from football television revenue will be given to the library next year.


The department continues to be one of the most diverse within the university and play a significant role in attracting minority students to the campus. The athletes are students first, and like all other parts of the institution, our goal in athletics is to ensure they receive the best possible experience academically and athletically. We must graduate as many of our student-athletes as possible. The quality of many of our student-athletes far exceeds that of many of our Pac-10 rivals. Nicole Dobrzynski was named the Pac-10 scholar-athlete of the year for women's soccer. Galen Rupp was Pac-10 scholar-athlete of the year for cross country, and Nick Reed was selected as both an academic All-American and a first team member of the Walter Camp All-America football team. In addition, Nick was the recipient of an NCAA post-graduate scholarship. These are three individuals selected as the outstanding scholar-athlete for their respective sports during the fall season in the Pac-10 conference when we only had five varsity teams competing.


Our student-athletes have acted as positive role models on campus and in the community; in September of 2008 the University of Oregon Athletic Department launched a new community service program called O Heroes. The goal of O Heroes is to create a single identity for all community service initiatives and to increase involvement from all student-athletes. Service is focused in three areas in which student-athletes believe they are able to excel: health, education and service. The Student-Athlete Advisory Committee decided to launch O Heroes as a student-organization and a nonprofit organization, allowing them to collect donations on campus grounds including at athletic facilities and to donate these funds back to the community. O Heroes serves the community through annual department-wide projects, team projects, individual projects, and by fulfilling requests from the community. Every year O Heroes adopts a “Duckling”, who is a local child battling an illness. They provide financial and emotional support to that child throughout the year. O Heroes participates in three Days of Service annually which are days where every athletic team participates in a service project. In November, 2008, O Heroes collected money then shopped for and delivered 39 Thanksgiving dinners to families in St. Vincent de Paul’s housing program. In addition, O Heroes attempts to fulfill service requests from the community that comply with the program’s three areas of focus. During the fall of 2008, student-athletes logged over 450 hours and served over 650 community members. We are here to educate the next generation of leaders. The intrinsic value of participation in sports and the life lessons learned by these young men and young women cannot be overstated.


The Intercollegiate Athletics Committee (IAC) continues to be the primary faculty body to assure academic policies and practices are consistent with supporting the intellectual growth and academic success of student athletes and the viability of athletics as an integral part of campus life. The Athletic Department will be able to enhance student life by coordinating the academic support component and the student services component under one roof when the new Academic Learning Center is completed. One area in particular which will benefit the student-athletes in the new Academic Learning Center is career planning.


The baseball program has returned after a twenty-seven year hiatus. All games this season have been sold out and all future games for this season are sold out. There were some concerns expressed by faculty regarding baseball and academics. The baseball team presently has a 2.76 cumulative GPA through the winter quarter. The Team Stunts and Gymnastics program has four athletes on campus at this time and will begin competition next year. Those athletes from our former wrestling program who chose to remain at the University of Oregon are still receiving their athletic financial aid and academic support.


The Athletic Department presently has a budget of roughly $54.6 million. It is paying all of its bills and included in the budget is approximately $8 million dollars (approximately 14% of our expenditures) being put back into the university’s economy for services provided; however, our financial situation is tenuous. The department may have to assume debt service on projects earlier than previously anticipated (for the Williams Bakery site) and unanticipated debt service (the parking structure). It was thought debt service on the property for the arena site would not begin until the arena was open and revenues realized. There are no reserves at this time, and we do not anticipate any reserves until the Legacy Fund is in place, fully funded, and functioning as intended. Meeting our financial obligations will be challenging but we are committed to being a self-sustaining athletic program. Over two-thirds of our income comes either directly or indirectly from football. Ticket renewals for football are comparable to and, in fact, slightly ahead of last year’s renewals. Donations and ticket prices have been established for the new arena and the opportunity exists for people to pay the same amount for tickets there as they have in MacArthur Court and in some cases without any donation. The new arena will be named for Phil and Penny Knight’s late son, Matthew. Permit issues will delay the opening of the arena until 2011. The financial ramifications of this delay are still not known.


In addition to the aforementioned Academic Learning Center, the first phase of the new baseball stadium is nearly complete and our first home game in twenty-seven years was held in February. University athletic events and events associated with the athletic department (i.e., the Olympic Trials, US Trials for the World [USA Track &Field] Championships, and NCAA Championships) continue to have a significant impact on the region’s economy and bring positive attention to the university on a national and global stage. The National Championship cross country team was a repeat winner this year and the football team’s success continues to bring positive attention from across nation to the university community and the region. In addition, our indoor track and field team also won an NCAA championship and our volleyball team returned to the sweet sixteen of the NCAA tournament for the second year in a row. It is significant to note that of the nineteen (19) seniors on our football team, fifteen have already completed their degree requirements, including one with an MBA. It should also be noted that every University of Oregon intercollegiate athletic team is above the NCAA “cut score” for the Academic Progress Rate (APR).


All of these accomplishments fall well within the university’s mission as a community dedicated to the highest standards of learning and service. Finally, the departure which was put in place in December is coming to fruition. Mike Bellotti will become the athletic director on July 1, 2009 and “Chip” Kelly has already taken over as our head football coach.


Interinstitutional Faculty Senate (IFS) Report by IFS Representative Peter Gilkey. Senate Vice President Peter Gilkey, who also serves on the IFS provided handouts of information and drew the senators’ attention to the Undergraduate Program Demand and Undergraduate Class Size documents which have the impact on how we do business. Vice President Gilkey indicated that the State Board of Higher Education has asked for reactions from all the OUS campuses regarding the draft documents on undergraduate program demand and class size, as it appears a policy will soon be implemented. Mr. Gilkey continued that is was a difficult board meeting with not very much concrete information on which to base budgeting decisions. He noted that the provost briefed the senate on the financial information as of now, which is very different than 10 days ago, and it may well be very different 10 days from now. Lastly, Mr. Gilkey solicited nominations for IFS positions which will be voted on at the May meeting. (The full IFS report can be found at http://www.uoregon.edu/~uosenate/dirsen089/GilkeyIFS-Report08Apr09.pdf.)


Internal Governance Update from Senate President Paul van Donkelaar. President van Donkelaar reported that he and Vice President Gilkey will meet with incoming university President Lariviere while he is on campus to discuss transition and potential revision to internal governance. Earlier in the day, Senate President van Donkelaar and Vice President Gilkey met with President Frohnmayer and agreed that a Statutory Faculty meeting would be held Wednesday, May 6th starting at 3:30 p.m. in 150 Columbia. The meeting is called in response to the opinion of the Department of Justice regarding issues of statutory faculty delegating authority and ratifying past governance acts. President van Donkelaar indicated President Frohnmayer and he would send out a letter to officially announce this meeting and agenda. A committee to work on revising governance, based on the outcome of the statutory faculty meeting, was announced with members Paul von Donkelaar, Mary Ann Hyatt, Joan Malmud, Rachele Raia, and Gordon Sayre.


During a brief discussion between President van Donkelaar and Mr. Frank Stahl, emeritus biology, it was clarified that at the present time, statutory faculty was defined to include all UO employees with the title of assistant, associate, or full professor and career non-tenure-related instructional faculty, and that classes would not be canceled during the meeting time. Mr. Stahl protested both the definition of statutory faculty not including emeritus faculty not closing classes so that faculty who teach at meeting time could attend. Senator John Bonine, law, brought up the issue of a quorum for the meeting to which President van Donkelaar indicated that the Department of Justice opinion noted there are no quorum requirements for this initial statutory faculty meeting. Further, President van Donkelaar indicated that the decision regarding defining the statutory faculty was made by the Department of Justice providing their opinion and then with local interpretation between President Frohnmayer and himself with consultation with General Counsel.


President Frohnmayer added a point of information saying that under an Internal Management Directive (of the Oregon University System), every new incoming President must make a decision as to what form of governance will be adopted for his tenure. The incoming president decides what best suits his administration.




There were two reminders: (1) of another chance to meet with incoming President Lariviere in the Pape room of the Museum of Art, and (2) the Town Hall meeting on April 14th regarding budget issues will meet in the EMU Ballroom. Also, a Joint Academic Affairs/Senate Conflict of Commitment (COC) working group has been named with membership to include Robert Melnick, John Bonine, Ronnie Bramhall, Michael Bullis, Moira Kiltie, Larry Singell, Christine Theodoropoulos, Russell Tomlin, and Lisa Wolverton. The charge of the working group is to identify and consider issues that fall under the general area of COC and to suggest ways to address matters it finds need attention. In particular, whereas the original draft COI-C policy called for uniform and universal disclosure, it is possible that the appropriate use of existing academic personnel practices, perhaps reviewed carefully and improved were needed, might preclude the need for universal disclosure. The goal of the group is to meet over the next 10 months to make recommendations to policies and procedures by next Winter/Spring term 2010 (see http://www.uoregon.edu/~uosenate/dirsen089/COC-Committeememo-6Apr09.pdf).


Secretary Steigelman noted the nominations period for elected faculty and staff committees and the senate was open and there is need for additional nominees. Vice President Gilkey re-iterated that an unusually large number of vacancies need to be filled.





Motion US08/09-5 regarding Conflict of Interest (COI) Policy and Procedure. Senator John Bonine, law, chaired the COI committee and introduced the motion:


Whereas, a robust financial conflict of interest policy and set of procedures is vital for the university community

Be it moved that, the Senate endorses following documents:

1.     UO Policy Financial Conflict of Interest Disclosure and Management for Investigators in Externally Sponsored Programs.

2.     Financial Conflict of Interest Annual Disclosure Form.

3.     Financial Conflict of Interest Disclosure Attachment.


Mr. Bonine stated his belief that opined that the faculty defines what conflict of interest is and the faculty has to govern it and not allow conflicts of interest to occur within the faculty. He noted some comparisons between of the current proposal and the previous proposal, saying that the forms are intended to be as self-explanatory as possible (the forms and proposed policy have been posted on the webpage for review and comments). Mr. Bonine explained that the committee worked collaboratively with the administration, and the idea is to adopt the policy and forms and submit them to the administration for promulgation and implementation. It was desirable to have the information provided be keep confidential to the degree possible. Copies are only to be made by the person signing the form or the Office of Responsible Conduct of Research. The disclosure forms are limited to those “investigators” in the sponsored research who are responsible, and the research must be externally funded. The annual disclosure form is only for those who are involved in such projects. The committee used Stanford’s process as guidance in defining what kinds of projects and interests would require disclosure (see http://www.uoregon.edu/~uosenate/dirsen089/US089-5.html).


Committee member Jim Brau noted that the proposed policy has deals with federal rules and there are state rules that will have to be dealt with. Mr. Bonine expanded on this comment saying that the policy is intended to comply with the US Department of Health and Requirements. In addition, there are broad policies of the State of Oregon that discourage conflict of interest, but they do not require any reporting system. It may necessary to examine state regulations and account for them some time in the future, but the current policy and forms relates to federal requirements only. Mr. Bonine went to suggest that even if on e is not covered specifically by the currently proposed policy, if one has a conflict of interest, one should fix the situation. Lastly, lying on the form is subject to potential sanctions, and the normal procedures with due process protections are explicitly laid out in Oregon administrative rules.


There was no specific discussion on the motion; rather, the committee was warmly recognized with a round of applause for their exhaustive and thorough work on the policy and disclosure forms. President van Donkelaar brought the motion US08/09-5 to endorse the UO Policy Financial Conflict of Interest Disclosure and Management for Investigators in Externally Sponsored Programs, the Financial Conflict of Interest Annual Disclosure Form, and the Financial Conflict of Interest Disclosure Attachment to a vote and the motion passed unanimously.


Motion US08/09-6 regarding a smoke free campus. Senator Deb Olsen, education, brought motion US08/09-6 to the floor:


Moved that,

The UO Senate endorses the report of the Smoke Free Task Force and recommends that the University Administration establish the University of Oregon campus as smoke free.


Senator Olsen read a letter from a student regarding the request for a smoke free campus, and said the proposed policy does not give anyone the right to smoke, but restricts smoking and helps protect non-smokers on campus. She added that this point of view represents a large body of students on campus who do not smoke and believe they have the right to be on campus and not being exposed to smoke against their will. Ms. Olsen added that the smoke free task force was charged to look at the possibilities of having a smoke free campus, not the boundaries of the campus. The assumption was that if the decision was to go smoke free, then the boundaries would be decided.


The report of the smoke free task force and a smoke free survey summary had been posted for senators and campus review prior to the meeting (see http://www.uoregon.edu/~uosenate/dirsen089/US089-6.html); consequently, many of the questions and issues discussed by the senators focused on clarification of the report. Questions included such topics as what kinds of smoking were restricted (cigarette, cigar, pipe, etc.); why outdoor areas are included when the American Cancer Associate does not include outdoor areas in its advisories; whether ceremonial use of tobacco in native American pow-wows is acceptable; the boundaries of the “campus”, that is, whether Autzen Stadium, the marine biology institute in Charleston, the Portland campus, programs offered in Bend, and so forth; how the smoking ban would be enforced; would the ban be phased in, or occur all at once; the reasonableness of adding a half-time position for implementation given the current budgetary difficulties; and the whether the intent of the motion is actual faculty legislation or asking the administration to decide how and if it wants to be a smoke-free campus.


Responses to these issues were clarified by Mr. Greg Lobisser, EMU, who indicated that the intent of group was to make the campus smoke free including exteriors as well. Other problems arose when the task force looked at having designated smoking areas (such as distance from a work site). He said special circumstances exempting the smoking ban could warrants further investigation, such as ceremonial use of tobacco or a smoking part in a theatre production. Mr. Lobisser acknowledged that some implementation problems need to be worked out yet, such as what constitutes the campus. He also indicated that the enforcement of the smoking ban would be accomplished through long-term education and changing the campus non-smoking climate.


In further discussion, senator Lisa Redford, linguistics, raised the question of how harmful smoke is if the smoker is not near a non-smoker; similarly, senator Huaxin Liu, mathematics, wondered if health was the primary issue, why not ban cars and busses from campus, too. He felt it was more realistic to have designated smoking areas at various sites around campus. A lengthy discussion on these points ensued. Then Senator Christian Cherry, music and dance, moved to table the motion until the next senate meeting, suggestion that more information regarding implementation of a smoke free campus was needed. The motion to table was put to a vote and defeated by a hand vote of 9 in favor and 16 opposed.


With the main motion back on the floor for discussion, Senator Bonine moved to amend the motion to read:


The UO Senate endorses the report of the smoke free task force and recommends that the University of Oregon move toward becoming a smoke free campus.


In speaking in favor of the amendment, Mr. Bonine said that the intent is to move the total delegation of the motion to the administration. He said it was important to acknowledge the valuable work the task force has done, but he noted that smokers on campus feel set-upon with this motion, and he did not want to tell a valuable employee who smokes that he or she could not, for example, smoke in his or her car during lunch break. The proposed amendment tries to reflect the sense of the senate and move the university to work in a smoke free direction. A vote on the motion to amend passed by voice vote. US08/09-6 now reads:


Moved that,

The UO Senate endorses the report of the smoke free task force and recommends that the University of Oregon move toward becoming a smoke free campus.


ASUO President Katz was recognized by president van Donkelaar and spoke at length against the motion as amended. He noted with appreciation the work the committee has done, but felt strongly that current rules about smoking distances from buildings are unenforced and that it makes more sense to move toward designated smoking areas. At this point Vice President Gilkey called the question, but it was defeated 17 in favor and 10 opposed (2/3rd of the body must vote in the affirmative to pass), thus discussion continued. President van Donkelaar next recognized students speaking on behalf of student peer health advisors from the health center who spoke in favor of passing the motion as mended. As the hour was growing late, the discussion wound down. A motion to call the question was made and passed. The main motion US08/09-6, as amended, was put to a voice vote and passed with only a few nay votes.


Executive Session. The members of the senate moved to Executive Session to consider a report from the Distinguished Service Award Committee.




The senate meeting was adjourned at 5:10 p.m.



Gwen Steigelman

Secretary of the Faculty


Web page spun on 11 May 2009 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