Present: Baldwin, Bjerre, Boush, Brokaw, Clark, Cohen, Conley, Dann, DeGidio, Earl, Eisert, Gilkey, Hurwit, Jenkins, Jones, Kintz, Lachman, Larson, Luck, Luks, McLauchlan, Merskin, Moore, Moreno, Olson, Paynter, Singell, Terborg, Tublitz, Vakareliyska, Westling, Whitlock
Excused: Burkhart, Dolezal, Helphand, Hibbard, Leahy, Schombert, Southwell, Upshaw
Absent: Davis, Dixon, Foster, Grzybowski, Levi, Meeks-Wagner, Reed, Wood
CALL TO ORDER
Senate President Jeffrey Hurwit called the regular meeting of the University Senate to order at 3:05 p.m. in 177 Lawrence.
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES
The minutes of April 14, 1999 were approved as distributed.
ANNOUNCEMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE FLOOR
Call for nominations. Senator John Baldwin, chair of the Senate Nominating Committee, reported that two of three persons nominated for senate vice president were ineligible. He distributed a list of eligible senators and encouraged everyone to talk with colleagues who would be interested in standing for election and then send in his or her nominations prior to the final senate organizational meeting held in two weeks.
President Hurwit informed everyone that due to a conflict in meeting space, the final senate organizational meeting has been rescheduled to Monday, May 24th at 3:00 p.m. in the Knight Library Browsing Room.
Mr. Alan Contreras, legislative relations, reported that the Oregon State Senate has passed the higher education budget bill that has been under consideration and that the bill is now on its way to the governor. He asked everyone to contact the Governor Kitzhaber, urging him to sign the budget bill. On the whole, Mr. Contreras said that he is optimistic about funding for next year.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Motion US 98/99-5: Post Tenure Review Policy. At the previous (April 14th) meeting, the senate passed a motion to refer the post-tenure review (PTR) policy statement issue to the Senate Executive Committee with instructions to produce a "minimalist" draft. Both the Senate Conference Committee and the Senate Executive Committee versions of the post-tenure review policy were available on the senate web site for review and suggestions by senators and faculty members prior to this meeting. To a point of order question concerning which PTR policy version would be discussed, the chair noted that the Senate Executive Committee's PTR policy version is on the floor for debate because it is the action resulting from the previous meeting's motion to refer. Thus the motion under debate is to adopt the Senate Executive Committee version of post tenure review policy. (Text of both PTR versions are available from the secretary or can be found at http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~uosenate/dirptr99/ptrindex.html.)
Senator Nathan Tublitz, biology, presented the executive committee's minimalist ("draft lite") version. He indicated that the minimalist version used the existing post-tenure review policy as a starting place, and, that it is quite similar to that of the Senate Conference Committee. The primary differences between the two policy versions were in the procedures for conducting reviews. The minimalist version sets forth procedures for the third year review that are relatively simplistic with the review only slightly more involved than an annual review. The third year review is then forwarded to the department head or dean who makes a brief report to the faculty member for his or her review and signature. An elected committee of the unit (department, college, or school) conducts the sixth year review, which is a more involved review with additional documents required. The documents submitted are reviewed by the committee and also by the department head (or dean). For the sixth year review, faculty members may include letters from colleagues both on and off campus. Two review reports, one from the department head (or dean) and the other from the unit's review committee, would be generated.
A question was asked about the use of the reviews. Senator Tublitz replied that a positive sixth year review would be linked to a recommendation for a salary increase. Faculty career development and support were also part of the review process. He emphasized that sanctions are not directly linked to either of the third and sixth year reviews.
To a question about the absence of peer review in the third year, Senator Linda Kintz, English, answered that this was due primarily because of the increased workload it would mean for faculty members. Senator Tublitz stated that peer review was optional and that departments could add other processes at their own discretion. Senate Vice-President Peter Gilkey, mathematics, stated that the objective was to keep the third year review as unobtrusive as possible. Senator Dave Boush, marketing, added that the third year review was necessarily included because it is critical to the university's accreditation process.
There was a question concerning how a positive evaluation would be determined, and if the definition of a positive review should be something that is higher than satisfactory. Senator Tublitz replied that the original wording used the term "highly enthusiastic" to describe the review but that the department's definition of "positive" should be a local decision. The general sense is that the line is drawn when a person has performed satisfactorily and has done all jobs required to receive a positive review. Senator Jim Terborg, management, also asked if the requirements for salary increase language should be consistent with the requirements for promotion to a full professor. Senator Tublitz said it was a matter of where you set the bar and right now, the bar is set at the term "positive." The implication is that the bar for promotion and tenure is set higher.
Mr. Paul Engelking, chemistry, stated that these reviews were a way of addressing salary compression and that the policy language should result in an ordinary salary adjustment, not an extraordinary one. Senator Tublitz stated that no one on the executive committee felt that the sixth year review should be as intense as that of a review for promotion to full professor. The committee felt that a positive review should have some remuneration, and that it should not be linked to the process for promotion; rather, the dollar amount should be a general, round figure.
After some discussion concerning the need for a third year review, Mr. Mike Russo, business, stated that the differences between the two policy statement drafts were that Senate Executive Committeeís changes were focused on reducing the workload of the third year review, and made the peer review optional in the third year. On the other hand, he felt that the Senate Conference Committee version that he chaired was more protective of faculty rights and gave a clear progression of the review process. It retained the good aspects of the prior policy and is formative, collaborative, positive, maintains a sense of collegiality, and contains clauses for continual improvement of faculty.
In a following question, Senator Kintz asked about the documents required for the third year review. Mr. Russo answered that the documents consisted of a narrative with comments on goals, annual reports, updated curriculum vitae, copies of peer and student evaluations, and any other documents that the faculty member may wish to include.
Senator David Cohen, physics, wondered why it was necessary to have an accelerated time for the third year review. Mr. Russo answered that for most people, it would be non-problematic and that most third year reviews would not consume that much time. Senator Cohen indicated that, for example, physics has a one-year review process and tries to delay it until the following spring term because time constraints make it too difficult to do in the fall and winter terms. Mr. Russo stated that the peer review was optional and that the summary report should not be too onerous. Senator Cohen, however, felt that the Senate Conference Committee document takes away the choice.
Senator Larry Dann, finance, asked if an assessment had been made of how many faculty members were subject to the third or sixth year review and if so, what kind of funding would be needed to meet the salary increases. Mr. Russo indicated that he had not looked at the percentages but based on the number of tenured faculty, administrators, and senior instructors, if everyone received $2,000 in the first year implemented, it would result in funding need in the amount of .18% of $60 million dollars. By the fifth year, funding needed would be in the amount of .09%. The funding includes salaries and overhead. Senator Dann asked if this would require the Provost to hold back a portion of department funds for salary increases. Mr. Russo indicated that the minimalist version includes a reference to increments for promotions.
Senator Tublitz stated that he understood that the difference between salary and promotion funds from retirements and 600-hour appointments goes into a salary pool. Provost John Moseley responded that this was the policy years ago, but the policy has been changed. Any funds after retirements and 600-hour appointments are accounted for go back to the departments. Under the new budget model, all funds from retirements will stay in the department. If this new fund were created, money for the sixth year review increase would be taken off the top. He went on to say that the university will finally get out of the cycle of the legislature dictating salary increases. In the student-centered funding model, the UO will receive a budget and then make allocations to departments. It is not likely that the university will end up with much discretionary money. Under the new budget, all money, in principle, would be subject to use for salary increases. President Hurwit asked if the proposed $2,000 funding for sixth year review increases is actually possible. Provost Moseley responded that, yes, it is possible but that such funding competes with all other salary funds.
Moving on, Senator Westling stated that he felt the procedures called for under the Senate Conference Committee version of peer review were quite onerous. He indicated that the law school does not do as many peer evaluations as are called for in the SCC document. Mr. Russo replied that he does not consider it is onerous to have one peer review per year per faculty member.
Senator Larry Singell, economics, asked about protections included in the SCC document. Mr. Russo stated that the SCC document has a tone of due process and is better in terms of handling small departments. He suggested that the minimalist version has language for unit committees in small departments. Mr. Russo said the SCC document allows more flexibility for the third year review for small departments and is sensitive to the small department issue.
Senator Westling said that the sixth year review should be an opportunity to design a plan for further career development. He thought the SCC document was too demanding for the sixth year review, saying that the two required meetings with the faculty member was overdoing it. He asked if Item 1 in the SCC version provided authority to change this procedure. Mr. Russo answered that there would be flexibility and that the first meeting would be minimal. Senator Westling then asked whom the "winner" would be in the event of a disagreement, to which Mr. Russo responding that the peer committee would probably win. Senator James Earl, English, indicated that ideally, he would like to end up with an option to choose between the two plans. Senator Michael Olson, ASUO, stated that the minimalist version does not take student perspectives into consideration.
As the discussion wound down, the question was called. The motion to adopt the Post Tenure Review Policy document drafted by the Senate Executive Committee was put to a hand vote and carried (19 in favor, 9 opposed). President Hurwit thanked everyone for their dedicated and hard work and indicated that he felt that the policy statement was a good document and that most everyone could live with the result. (Full text of the Post Tenure Review Policy Statement is available from the secretary or can be found on the web at http://www.uoregon.edu/~uosenate/dirptr99/draftlite.html.) Posted as Policy Statement 3.150 http://policies.uoregon.edu/ch3t.html. See also archival copy
COMMITTEE REPORTS
Report from the Educational Technology Committee. Senator Robin Paynter, library, briefed the senate on the activities of the committee with a term by term accounting. She noted in particular the Wireless Project, a wireless connectivity project around the EMU that would meet student needs for laboratory space and which should be implemented during the summer of 1999. The committee is also working on the Faculty Instructional Training Center that should be open by the end of spring term to bridge the gap for faculty to learn how to integrate informational technology into their teaching. In spring, the committee also will work on lab equipment for the law school. She indicated that currently there is no centralized base for on-line courses; this area is being explored to determine how the university can facilitate more on-line courses. Projects for the coming academic year are to replace Gladstone, finish the Wireless Project, and work on the items in the Process for Change. Senator Paynter concluded her report by recommending that the senate appoint its Educational Technology Committee representative for a two-year term rather than the current one-year term.
Report from the Committee on Committees. Committee chair Mr. Randy McGowen, history, reported that the committee worked very smoothly this year. The appointment of individuals to serve two-year staggered terms has strengthened the committee process. Nevertheless, the usual problem of encouraging faculty to participate in faculty governance by serving on committees continues to plague the committee. Mr. McGowen presented the list of recommended committee appointments and moved that the list be accepted. The motion was passed unanimously by voice vote.
Report from the Senate Nominating Committee. Senator John Baldwin, PPPM, reported that his committee was unable to obtain sufficient nominations to serve on the Committee on Committees and asked that senators help solicit and submit nominations as soon as possible before the May 24th senate organizing meeting when the membership will be ratified.
Report from the Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Decennial Review. Mr. Van Kolpin, economics, chaired the ad hoc of the committee and began his report by thanking the five people who worked very hard on the Program Review Committee. He stated that approximately 5 to 6 programs are reviewed annually. The Program Review Committee was restructured with the total number of members decreased from 15 to 6. The committee will have five members taking part in the internal review while the only the chair is involved in the preliminary discussion and final wrap-up. Committee membership will depend on the number of programs being reviewed. Mr. Kolpin felt these changes would lend uniformity to the overall process. Committee members are generally people who have served on program reviews in the previous one or two years. The primary change to this committee is in the number of people overseeing the process. President Hurwit thanked Mr. Kolpin and accepted the report on behalf of the Senate.
Spring Election Results. The secretary reported that results of the spring 1999 elections were tabulated and being sent in campus mail to the faculty. She noted that a congratulatory letter will be sent to newly elected senators inviting them to the May 24th senate organizational meeting and the reception that follows.
Spring Term Preliminary Curriculum Report. Mr. Paul Engelking, chemistry, and chair of the Committee on Courses reviewed curriculum changes in the report. In addition, he indicated the Committee on Courses would review the entire list of courses and any courses that had not been taught for the last three years would be dropped in the fall 1999 preliminary curriculum report. After some minor typographical amendments were made to the spring term report, it was adopted, as amended, by voice vote.
STATE OF THE UNIVERSITY
Provost Moseley updated the senators on activities of the various Process for Change task forces. He noted that reports on Process for Change activities and other materials can be found on the relevant web pages. (See Process for Change on the UO Home Page). The provost proceeded to highlight several task force activities as follows.
Undergraduate Task Force: (a) Lower Division - Three Pathways will be implemented during the fall of 1999 term and will run through two complete cycles to determine their success. Cohorts of 50 to 100 students will participate. The effectiveness of the Pathways as being more coherent to general education will be evaluated. It is anticipated that these three Pathways will provide many of the general education requirements for students. (b) Upper Division - This group is working on Participatory Learning Experiences (PLEs) and has developed a new web page to provide more information to students as well as encouragement to units who offer participatory learning experiences. Six proposals for enhanced PLEs are under consideration and may be implemented during fall. The proposals are designed to expand and increase the quality of internships. (c) Advising - This task force group is working on improving techniques to facilitate faculty advising. One method is to provide easier access to the student data warehouse and better information on student progress through the use of better software. Another proposal is an advising week for at-risk sophomores to deal with items such as low GPA, completion of general education requirements, selection of the major, and so forth. These are likely to be implemented but an infrastructure will be needed to support the initiatives. (d) Recruitment and Retention - The Dean's Scholarship Program has been implemented with apparent success. Since its implementation, changes have been seen with the average GPA of students rising from 3.35 to 3.45 and SAT scores up 10 points in each category. A slow, steady increase can be expected. The enrollment goal for the UO of 17,200 to17,250 students for 1999-2000 is likely to be met. The retention group is conducting dorm surveys to identify at-risk students who will become part of an intervention program. In addition, the combined idea of both the recruitment and retention groups regarding the freshman-mentoring program will be implemented at a future date. Through this program, each freshman student entering the university will be required to take a degree-fulfilling course of no more than 25 students of similar interests led by a full-time faculty member who will also serve as their adviser and mentor. The program is an extension of other programs such as the Freshman Interest Groups. Because this is a fairly expensive program to implement, decisions on this program will be made during the fall of 2000 after gathering more data.
Extended Studies Implementation Team. This group is looking at proposals for "degrees after dark." The goal is to implement one or two degree programs that are completely available after 4:00 p.m. The market needs to be tested to determine the viability of this program. Another area being considered concerns non-degree, professional development programs resulting in certificates of completion.
Research/Graduate Education Implementation Team. The Graduate Education team is considering proposals for the recruitment of more graduate students, attracting higher level students, and implementing more high-level graduate courses. The Research team is looking into encouraging interdisciplinary research, providing funding for the stability of research projects, a program for encouraging graduate student/faculty collaboration in non-typical areas, and increasing undergraduate research opportunities.
Provost Moseley also addressed the wireless project and saying that the university needs to get to the point where everyone can connect from anywhere on campus or close proximity to campus without plugging into the network. A question and answer period followed.
Senator Michael Olson, ASUO, brought up the subject of recent difficulties in obtaining sufficient funding for conferences sponsored by ASUO, saying that it was difficult to get support from the administration. Provost Moseley responded that Mr. Dave Hubin, assistant to the president, had been working with the ASUO to try to find funding. However, the provost indicated that the most recent conference on diversity was organized without a good perspective of the amount of funding needed for an activity, and consequently the ASUO was financially in over their heads. He indicated that he was very supportive of the ASUO but the method of planning and the timing of the conference on diversity was not good. Provost Moseley stated he wants to support these kinds of activities and collaborate in the planning and implementation process. Senator Olson asked what would be a good method to gain financial support. The provost suggested it would probably be best to bring this issue up to the Outreach Implementation Team.
Senator Tublitz stated that he felt, due to pressures of time and the filtering down of ideas, some innovative ideas originally proposed have been eliminated. For instance, he addressed the "frequent credit" program that was proposed to enable students to receive a rebate based on the amount of credits that they took. Provost Moseley said he believes that there are a number of very innovative ideas on the table as well as great examples that already show success. In response to the specific question, the university is awaiting a decision on the tuition structure from the Oregon University System, that is, whether the UO will have to continue with the 12 to18 credit plateau where the student pays a fixed amount for credits taken in that range. In a credit for credit system, for example, a student who signed up for 15 credits might receive 2 credits free. Such ideas have not been dropped and will continue to be developed. The provost added that many of the implementation team members have agreed to serve for another year, which should add continuity to the process.
Senator Cynthia Vakareliyska, linguistics, asked about the emergency funds for research program and whether it included humanities and social science programs. Provost Moseley responded that we would have to wait and see but that he expects what has been done in the past will continue, and that this is merely a formalization of that process. The funding will continue to be done on a case by case basis and has been done on all scales.
ADJOURNMENT
Asking and hearing of no new business, President Hurwit
adjourned the meeting at 5:00 p.m.
Gwen Steigelman
Secretary
= there are a number of very innovative ideas on the table as well
as great= examples that already show success. In response to the specific
question,= the university is awaiting a decision on the tuition structure
from the= Oregon University System, that is, whether the UO will have to
continue= with the 12 to18 credit plateau where the student pays a fixed
amount for= credits taken in that range. In a credit for credit system,
for example, a= student who signed up for 15 credits might receive 2 credits
free. Such= ideas have not been dropped and will continue to be developed.
The provost= added that many of the implementation team members have agreed
to serve for= another year, which should add continuity to the process.
Senator Cynthia Vakareliyska, linguistics, asked about the emergency= funds for research program and whether it included humanities and social= science programs. Provost Moseley responded that we would have to wait and= see but that he expects what has been done in the past will continue, and= that this is merely a formalization of that process. The funding will= continue to be done on a case by case basis and has been done on all= scales.
ADJOURNMENT
Asking and hearing of no new business, President Hurwit adjourned the=
meeting at 5:00 p.m.
Gwen Steigelman
Secretary
--=====================_5119975==_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
--=====================_5119975==_--