Subject: Request or Direct?
To: Peter B Gilkey (gilkey@uoregon.edu), Nathan Tublitz (tublitz@uoneuro.uoregon.edu)...
Cc: Gordon Sayre, President Frohnmayer, ...
From: Franklin Stahl (fstahl@uoregon.edu)
Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 16:16:49 -0700

Dear Peter and Nathan and other interested parties,

At the Senate Meeting of 13 May 2009, Professor Gilkey (the Senate Vice President) advised Professor Tublitz (Senator) that any motion seeking action from the Administration should "request" the Administration to act rather than "direct" it to act. This note respectfully requests the Senate Vice President to explain why the Senate, as the sole governing body of the UO, should not "direct".

Oregon law charges the Professors and President with the responsibility of governing the University, In 1995, the Faculty Assembly (enhanced by a few student members), ratified President Frohnmayer's proposed governance document ("Senate Charter") which charged a reconfigured Senate with the responsibility of governing the University ("...sole governing body..."). (The Faculty, concerned that the Senate might lose its way, retained a voice that could be exercised following petition of 33% of the "Voting Faculty.")

President Frohnmayer chose not to preside over the operations of the Senate suggesting, instead, a Senate by-law in which the presiding officer is chosen from the membership. With the University's governing body thus isolated from the office of the Presidency, it is rendered powerless unless it has the power to direct the Administration's activities.

Would the Senate's "power-to-direct" render the President a powerless servant of the Senate? No, because IMDs grant the President the power to veto actions of the Senate, subject to review by the Chancellor. As long as the Senate operates as a body that requests rather than directs, however, the President holds all the cards, and the University is no longer governed by the Faculty (President plus Professors).

Could the University President simply "rule" that it lies outside of the Senate's purview to "direct" the administration? I suppose he could, if he had been in compliance with IMD 1.123, which states: "The President shall define the scope of authority of faculties, councils, committees, and officers, subject to review by the Chancellor, when not otherwise specifically defined by Board policy or established in the internal governance statement." In the absence of such a definition, however, the Senate might reasonably assume that its purview is without limit, and it should respectfully direct the President whenever direction suits its purpose.

Respectfully (of course),
Frank
Franklin W. Stahl
Molecular Biology
1229 Univ. of Oregon
Eugene, OR 97403-1229
TEL: 541-346-6096
FAX: 541-346-5891
PLEASE REPLY TO fstahl@uoregon.edu
I e-mail, therefore I am.

Subject: Re: Shared Governance
To: Peter Gilkey (gilkey@uoregon.edu)
From: Franklin Stahl (fstahl@uoregon.edu)
Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 21:55:10 -0700

Peter, Of course you may post the letter. Best regards, Frank

On May 14, 2009, at 9:19 PM, Peter Gilkey wrote:

Dear Frank.

Thank you for a most provocative email on shared governance. I am going to have to delay a bit on getting back to you as tomorrow (Friday) is a very full day for me teaching. But please don't take my temporary lack of response as indicating a lack of interest - only that to give you the thoughtful response you deserve will take a bit of time for unhurried reflection.

In the meantime, I ask your permission to post your letter on the Senate Website.

PBG