Peter, Please post this letter as part of our continuing conversation re UO governance.

Dear Peter,

Many thanks for your thoughtful response to my remarks regarding University Governance, as provoked by "request" vs "direct."

We have somewhat different perspectives, which may be captured by the phrases "hierarchical governance" (corporate-like) or "community-of-scholars governance" (town-meeting-like).

The tension between these two views is exposed by contradictions in the OUS system under which we must operate. The community-of-scholars approach is mandated by the State Charter: ORS 352.010 Status of Faculty " The President and professors constitute the faculty of the University, and, as such, shall have the immediate government and discipline of it and the students therein ." But, at a later date, the Legislature imposed a hierarchy on the govenance with ORS 352.004 Presidents of state institutions: "The president of each state institution of higher education within the Oregon University System is also president of the faculty. The president is also the executive and governing officer of the institution, except as otherwise provided by statute. Subject to the supervision of the State Board of Higher Education, the president of the institution has authority to control and give general directions to the practical affairs of the institution."

This ORS, which grants authority to the President to control and give general direction was then further specified by IMD 1.123 "(1) The President shall have the right to convene and preside over the faculty or faculties of the institution and shall have the right of veto over their decisions or those of the representative body, subject to review by the Chancellor. 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.

The State Board apparently recognized the disharmony between the State Charter, on the one hand, and ORS 352.010 and IMD 1.123, on the other. To deal with the inevitable conflicts that would arise in any OUS institution that attempted to adhere to both these legal mandates, it provided a crutch by imposing on the Office of the Chancellor the obligation of reviewing any Presidential vetoes.

Thus, the Faculty is obliged to govern (as imposed by the State Charter), but the tools for executing this obligation have been biased towards presidential control by State Law and by IMDs. When the Faculty (either directly or via the Senate) reaches a decision to which the President is opposed, he/she may veto. The Professorate or Senate may then hope that the Chancellor will appreciate their point of view.

Request vs Direct : A President never has to veto a Request. He/she may reply, simply, "I gave the SenateÕs/FacultyÕs request full and careful consideration and, after consultation with Faculty Leaders and/or the Attorney General, I have regretfully been forced to conclude that it would be most unwise and, indeed, contradictory to the legitimate goals and aspirations of this University to meet the SenateÕs/FacultyÕs request at this time."

The President cannot so treat an Directive. If he/she does not want to comply with the Directive, he/she must veto it, and the Chancellor will then conduct a review, which would be binding on all. If the President simply ignores a Senate Directive, the Senate/Faculty can, in Open Meeting, debate a Motion of "no confidence."

If the Faculty (or delegated governing body) were meant to "request" only, there would be no need for presidential veto power. Indeed, the veto serves to reconcile faculty governance according to the State Charter with the rules imposed by the State Board.

As the University moves to create a new governance document upon the ascension of a new president, the philosophy of University Governance should, indeed, be subject to wide debate. Only then can we expect that the Constitution created on this occasion will be an effective instrument for governance within the strictures and opportunities presented by the ORSs and IMDs that hover over us.

re. AAUP : Should the Faculty decide to unionize under the AAUP banner, the AAUP format would be our standard. Until then, we can forge our own standard, more in line with the spirit of ORS 352.010.

Yours in the quest for good university governance,

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.