Subject: Re: Use of the Veto
To: Peter Gilkey
Cc: gwens@uoregon.edu, paulvd@uoregon.edu, dfrohn@uoregon.edu, provost@uoregon.edu,
From: Franklin Stahl Add to address book...
Date: Mon, 18 May 2009 15:08:03 -0700

Peter: If you consider this letter of sufficient value, it may be posted.

Dear Peter and Colleagues,

The paucity of vetoes needs context. Prior to 1995, the University's governing body (the Assembly) was presided over by the President. Some Motions (e.g. Get ROTC off Campus) generated lively debate in which one suspected that the President favored a minority view . When he felt that passage of such a Motion would damage the University, he typically had one os his camp vote in favor. When the vote went against the President's unstated position, the "Campie" would call for reconsideration at the following meeting. The President then turned out a bunch of his followers and, after further lively debate, saw his presumed position upheld.

That approach was better in all ways than a veto. It ensured that the contentious issue got a good open hearing and gave both sides the opportunity, if they cared enough, to turn out their supporters. Sometimes the losers grumbled, but had to admit that it was all done within the proper process and they had themselves to blame for not rallying their troops better.

Our current Senate can't work that way, because (1) the University President chose not to preside over the Senate and (2) because the fixed size of the Senate gives less scope for rallying ones troops. If our new gov doc is organized like the present one, we can expect some directives and some vetoes. Sounds OK to may -- all will be respectful, as is

Yours truly, Frank