Note: Minutes posted here are as transmitted to the UO Senators. They may have been corrected at subsequent meetings of the senate; this would be reflected in the minutes of those subsequent meeting(s).

Present: Baldwin, Bjerre, Boush, Brokaw, Burkhart, Clark, Dann, DeGidio, Dixon, Dolezal, Earl, Eisert, Foster, Gilkey, Grzybowski, Helphand, Hibbard, Hurwit, Jenkins, Jones, Kintz, Lachman, Luck, Luks, Merskin, Moreno, Olson, Paynter, Reed, Schombert, Singell, Southwell, Terborg, Tublitz, Upshaw, Vakareliyska, Westling, Wood

Excused: Cohen, Davis, Larson, Leahy, Levi, McLauchlan, Moore, Whitlock

Absent: Conley, Meeks-Wagner

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 were approved as distributed.

ANNOUNCEMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE FLOOR

Oregon University System Rally Day, March 31, 1999. Senate President Jeff Hurwit thanked all those who participated and reported that the day was a great success and the legislators were impressed. In particular, State Senate President Brady Adams and House Speaker Lynn Snodgrass were both pleased. The individual meetings between legislators and faculty, staff, and students were constructive as well. The Republican led Oregon senate is very much on the side of the OUS budget and the House, too, is more favorable than it was previously. Everyone's efforts to participate have been very beneficial.

Report from the Interinstitutional Faculty Senate. Ms. Ann Tedards, IFS representative, reported on the meetings held on April 2-3, 1999. Guests at the first day's meeting included State Senate President Brady Adams, House Speaker Lynn Snodgrass, Mr. Grattan Kerans from the State Board of Higher Education, and Mr. Gerald Kissler from the governor's office. Senate President Adams and House Speaker Snodgrass indicated they were very impressed with the support at Rally Day but also reminded everyone that this is only the beginning of the process. They urged all faculty to remain engaged in the budget process during the remaining weeks by staying in contact with legislators via letters, visits, and phone calls. Higher education funding must remain a priority. Institutions not having unionized faculty members were strongly urged to contact their provosts via their system of shared governance to determine what percent of funding will be devoted to faculty compensation. Ms. Tedards also remarked that the proposed increase in faculty salary does not show up as a line item within the new funding model. Mr. Kissler told the IFS that the governor continues to support $73 million for higher education but will not support any higher figure due to his commitment to the K-12 budget.

During the second day's meeting, Ms. Shirley Clark, vice chancellor of academic affairs, spoke about the partnership between the OUS and the new centers proposed for Bend and Coos Bay, as well as connections with the community colleges. Additionally, the IFS has presented a resolution to urge the governor to appoint a faculty member, endorsed by the IFS and all institutional senates, to the State Board of Higher Education. Some members of the board have been reluctant to appoint a faculty member because they see a conflict of interest between faculty and the work of the board.

Adding a personal note Ms. Tedards said it became uncomfortably clear that institutions like our university whose faculty takes pride in its system of shared governance, stand to lose those systems to collective bargaining if they do not execute their responsibilities fully. She also urged all senators to continue the good work in governance to ensure that vital issues are thoroughly debated and brought to timely resolution.

Other announcements. President Hurwit reminded the senators about the upcoming "Take our Daughters to Work Day." The event will be held on April 22, 1999. Senator John Baldwin, chair of the Senate Nominating Committee, encouraged all senators to submit nominations to him for the office of senate vice president (president elect) and membership on the Committee on Committees. He thanked all those who have served and indicated that all service is appreciated.

Senator Jennifer Luck, ASUO, gave a brief presentation concerning the Student Conduct Committee deliberations. She indicated that committee members found the conduct code inconsistent in a number of areas. The committee decided to begin the process of addressing these concerns by rewriting the mission statement for which they would like comments and feedback. This issue will be revisited during the fall term.

EXECUTIVE SESSION

The senate recessed into a 10-minute executive session to discuss the Distinguished Service Awards.

STATE OF THE UNIVERSITY

Remarks by Mr. Chris Ramey, director of university planning. Mr. Ramey gave a presentation on "The Campus of the Future: Issues of Quality and Growth." He indicated that it is time to turn our attention to the nature of the core campus and how the campus should expand. He told the senators that planning should begin with academic planning, followed by facilities planning. The fundamental philosophy is that the university needs to be as flexible as it can in campus growth while at the same time maintaining the quality of the institution.

Mr. Ramey explained some of the tools and techniques of planning, one of which was codified in the long-range plan of 1991 that calls for an open-space framework. He pointed out that the open spaces on the campus map he displayed should and would be preserved, that is, not built upon as the campus grows. The 1991 plan reaffirmed the six principles of the Oregon experiment, the most important principle being that people who are directly affected by the consequences of growth should be involved in the planning process. Another key principle is that the planning process use patterns or a set of written guidelines or ideals. All projects are managed by campus user groups with the Campus Planning Committee maintaining oversight.

As an example, Mr. Ramey described one plan, that all teaching facilities to be located within a 7-minute walking distance from each other because of the current 10-minute interval between classes. These are called "walking circles" and all classrooms must be within these circles. However, at the present time there is land owned in the east sector of campus that cannot be accessed in seven minutes. The current plan is to move functions that do not depend on the 7-minute walk area to areas beyond the circles. A good example of this is the new Knight Law School building that falls outside of the perimeter of the circles because law students do not have to depend on the 10-minute class interval system. Additionally, the plan calls for a conversion of older buildings to classrooms within the walking circles.

The long-range Campus Development Plan is to look at growth potential every two years and use a 20-year projection on projects not to be funded right away. Among the projects to be worked on in the future are the business college expansion, the new science building, the tennis center, an addition to the Natural History Museum, the Music School expansion, the College of Education expansion, and the Vivian Olum Center expansion. Each area is identified as a neighborhood area and needs to maintain maximum coverage. Once maximum coverage is achieved, no further buildings can be constructed.

Planning also has looked at the maximum buildout -- what the campus would look like with maximum density. At present, campus buildings contain 4,439,000 square feet. The growth per square foot (GSF) right now is 625,251. With the addition of the 20-year capacity of 542,591, the total surplus would be 1,167,842 GSF. The rationale uses 273 square feet per student. These are merely crude estimates that assume that: (a) space is used efficiently; (b) space is actually where it is needed, and (c) the proportion of space would remain the same.

The Campus Development Project looked at the following buildings and determined that there would be an additional 1,350 new classroom stations for Grayson Hall, 605 new stations in Gilbert Hall, and 100 new stations in the Knight Law School, all with lecture hall type of seats. With the addition of these new seats, the campus student capacity could increases to approximately 21,000 FTE. This plan does not take into account other needs necessary to keep up with growth, such as parking, library facilities, housing, faculty offices, and other services. The goals of facilities planning are to meet the needs of the academic community in a way that preserves functionality and the beauty of the campus, to look at potential growth, and the efficient use of space. Mr. Ramey indicated that the campus capacity could increase to 20,000-22,000 FTE and still maintain what we cherish about the campus. If growth increases beyond that level, it would require more serious changes such as increase of times when courses are offered, satellite campuses, and higher density, among others.

During the ensuing discussion period Senator Kenneth Helphand, landscape architecture, asked about the consideration of parking structures on campus. Mr. Ramey answered that if the university wants to preserve the open space then it will have to look at structure parking. Parking structures would be built on existing lots and would be kept on the outside perimeter of the campus. Senator Linda Kintz, English, asked if the planning included primarily large lecture halls. She wondered if this was really the most efficient use of space. Mr. Ramey responded that from a space point of view, it is most effective to consider large classrooms. Lecture type seats use up 8 square feet versus 20 square feet for seats in regular classrooms. Senator Barbara Jenkins, library, asked about the number of square feet allocated per student and whether or not it differed from the national average or other university averages. Mr. Ramey responded that he had not researched this question and he would like an opportunity to make comparisons with schools such as Oregon State or other peer institutions to determine such ratios.

Senator Wayne Westling, law, asked how the university would cope with growth and whether it would require a change in the density ratio. Mr. Ramey said that the university was following the 1991 plan that states that Oregon requires land use to be in harmony with the local land use plan; however, the Eugene Plan does not govern land use densities. He added that the Campus Planning Committee serves in an advisory capacity to the president, and that unless policies change, the final step in this the planning process is the president's office.

Senator Baldwin, PPPM, asked if there was any thought to a grassy promenade instead of paved access along 13^th street due to the clash of students with vehicles. Mr. Ramey stated that there has been talk of closing the center of access by Oregon Hall, creating a better pedestrian zone. Studies are under way to consider this possibility. One problem is how to manage vehicles coming through the east gate that need access to that part of the campus.

Senator Larry Singell, economics, asked about the Process for Change proposal that guarantees that every freshman would have at least one 25-person class and what impact the proposal would have on planning. Mr. Ramey responded that he was not aware of this proposal, and thus could not provide a specific answer.

Senator Nathan Tublitz, biology, stated that the university needed to factor in the preservation of the greenway space. He suggested that the green quality of the campus is its most attractive feature and it is important to keep the campus as attractive as possible. Mr. Ramey replied that the first priority is the preservation and enhancement of the open space perimeter or framework of the campus. One of the best examples of this is the design of the new law school building with open space around it. He reminded everyone that the planning process and planning decisions are governed by people in the university of who, it is hoped, place a high value on green space.

Senator Mary Wood, English, returned to the issue of freshman courses and small class sizes. She fears that the building trend is toward larger classes, which she finds disturbing. Mr. Ramey reiterated that they try to focus decision making input at the level where it matters most. For example, Grayson Hall had a planning task force to involved people there on planning issues. A study led by Ms. Polly Welch, architecture, was done with focus groups to deal with the size, shape, and types of classrooms needed.

President Hurwit asked about the status of earlier plans to build between Hendrick's Hall and Collier House. Mr. Ramey answered that the plan was for a sister building to Susan Campbell and Hendrick's Hall to complete the quadrangle. There are no plans to build right now, but that building could be an addition to PPM or Career Center expansion. In the final question of this discussion Senator Jenkins asked if there was information available to determine if students view the green space as an important factor in their decision to attend the university. Mr. Ramey did not have an answer, but suggested that Mr. Jim Buch, associate vice president for student academic affairs, would have information on this issue.

UNFINISHED BUSINESS

Senator Michael Olson, ASUO, was recognized by the chair to present the following motion concerning extending the course drop/add time period.

In the debate on this motion, Senator Paula Burkhart, research and graduate education, asked what the difference was between this motion and a similar one that was presented last year. The response was that the fiscal impact statement showing negative impact (and perhaps responsible for the motion's defeat last year) was reflective of the originally proposed 13 and 15 days drop/add period, not the amended motion which was the 8 and 10 day period, the same as in the current motion.

Senator Gene Luks, computer and information science, stated that the reason faculty voted against this motion last year was that they felt students were missing too many classes and missed material would be difficult, at best, to make up. He felt that ten days was too late to permit students to enter classes in certain departments. Further, he suggested a better way to survey students was to ask them if they could approve something that might cause them not to get into a class they need because someone else does not drop out in time. Senator Luks said he had polled his classes with this question and the results of the poll were the opposite of the ASUO survey. Finally, he noted that the fiscal impact of extending deadlines was not clear then and is not clear now.

Senator Jennifer Luck, ASUO, said she realized that classes, especially in the sciences, would be difficult for students to add because of the nature of the courses, and that the ASUO was open to an amendment to leave the decision up to the departments. She believes that departments should have the ability to say that some classes absolutely cannot be added. Senator Westling stated that the law school does this now; the secretary told senators that she had received a letter from Dean Rennard Strickland that the law school has to abide by state bar regulations concerning attendance and would not be able to abide by the proposed drop/add policy.

Senator Linda Kintz, English, agreed with the statements made by other faculty and said because terms are so short (ten weeks) lengthening the time frame to add or drop classes is troubling to her. Two weeks is a considerable amount of time to have passed when entering a new class. Senator David Boush, LCB, asked if the instructors or department could set their own limit on when students could add classes. Mr. Herb Chereck, registrar, answered that this was a departmental decision.

Ms. Geneva Wortman, ASUO president, noted that the present drop/add deadlines provide only small window of opportunity to add internships. She indicated that many students have come to her and are upset that they cannot add courses because of the short time frame. She suggested the survey conducted, although admittedly skewed, represents the students' true feelings.

Mr. Jim Long, chemistry, indicated that the Undergraduate Council discussed this issue and voted to oppose the motion. They felt that a student who was really interested in adding a class after the current deadline can do so with the instructor's permission at any time. Mr. Chereck told senators that there is a committee review process for all course additions presented on petitions and signed by the faculty and department. Most of the petitions are categorically approved and he felt internships would fall into this category as well. The registrar's office works with the department to get students enrolled in internships during the term.

Senator James Earl, English, remarked the real issue was whether students should be free to make a choice to add a class late knowing they are at a tremendous disadvantage and likely to pay a penalty. He said he did not feel that his teaching would suffer because of students coming in late and could not see a reason to oppose giving students this freedom of choice. However, he noted also that there might be specialized courses where the presence of new students would be disruptive. Senator Luck agreed, saying that students do realize they are at a disadvantage in coming into a class after it has begun, but that is their choice to make. The ASUO is not suggesting that it is good for students to add/drop classes so late in the quarter, they are just asking for the opportunity to have the choice.

Senator Cynthia Vakareliyska, linguistics, suggested this motion might have a greater affect on departments with small classes that need to know specific enrollments to know whether or not the class will be cancelled. The question was raised whether university policy or department policy takes precedence. Senator Westling gave an example of what the law school does currently: it is stated on the syllabus that students must attend the first class or they are dropped from the class. Senator Luks added that one problem is that of students dropping the class too late for someone else to add it later, and consequently, those students suffer. Senator John Foster, sociology, called the question.

Senator Westling began the discussion noting that there was a motion on the floor to accept the report and recommendations of the Ad Hoc PTR committee. He asked if the senate could all agree that the need to add a third year review was imposed by the accrediting agency. Further, he identified two central issues: first, is the university required to have sanctions as well as rewards built in to its PTR in order to be consistent with Oregon Administrative Rules (OARs) and Internal Management Directives (IMDs), or can we have a process on post-tenure review that is silent on sanctions. Second, should the university have a mandatory elected departmental PTR review committees, or an elected college or level PTR committee? In other words, is the university compelled to have sanctions (per OAR and IMD) in its internal PTR policy that includes language on increases and decreases related to performance and PTR?

Mr. Paul Engelking, chemistry, and who was involved in the Ad Hoc PTR Committee and SCC, indicated that the SCC decided that it would not restate the legal language in the new policy because of the length of the document. Rather, they simply referenced the existing sanctioning documents. Senator Carl Bjerre, law, said he was not clear on the necessity of including sanctions since the language of the IMD is not clear. The SCC's PTR policy does not require sanctions to a negative post-tenure review, but the Hurwit document does, perhaps because president Hurwit interpreted the IMD as requiring such a statement.

Senator Westling asked whether a sanctioning statement should be included in the PTR policy, whether required or not. Senator Clark responded that sanctions should not put the PTR document. Post tenure review is meant to be developmental and there should be safeguards in the policy for anyone who has his or her salary threatened as a result of the review. President Hurwit, in referring to his PTR document, indicated he was not happy with adding salary adjustments as a punitive measure but interpreted the OAR and IMD as requiring the link of salary adjustment with performance. If there is a way not to do this and still meet the requirements, then he would be agreeable.

There was further discussion on whether the SCC's PTR policy was inconsistent because it recommended salary increases for good performance but did not directly address the issue of no salary increase or a salary decrease . Mr. Engelking replied that the SCC referenced the decrease salary issue in the OARs already in place. President Hurwit pointed out that the SCC referenced sanction was "for cause" which was not the same as linking salary adjustments to performance reviews, and which was the reasoning behind his inclusion of such links in his PTR document.

Senator Nathan Tublitz, biology, indicated that the issue is not what could happen under the best of circumstances but what might happen under the worst of circumstances. The linking of a decrease in remuneration to a poor performance evaluation may be done more readily as a result of the direct linkage. If that happens, it might be due to personality issues or many other reasons. If this language is included, it should allow for a complete and full due process event to occur. Otherwise, the language should not be included. Senator Bjerre stated that including punitive language in the document gives a sense of a threat that there might be harsh consequences to faculty for a negative post-tenure review. He believes the IMD contains very loose language about the institution's plan to relate PTR review to remuneration. One approach is to write a PTR document in such a way as to accommodate our concerns -- post-tenure review could be one of many factors to determine salary adjustments.

At this point Senator Westling took a non-binding straw vote that indicated most senators do not want language with sanctions in the PTR document.

Moving on to the second issue, Senator Westling asked whether the senators wanted a mandatory PTR committee at the department level, or have the option for school and college level PTR committees. Mr. Charlie Wright, mathematics, suggested that the people drafting the PTR policy language have their own assumptions that do not necessarily match the realities of the College of Arts and Sciences (CAS). He pointed out that post tenure review is clearly differ from promotion and tenure review. He felt that the post-tenure review should be locally developed and done within departments. His experience on post-tenure review committees has shown that it is very difficult to have a good sense of norms in other departments. For instance, CAS is a very large college and it would not be viable to have one PTR committee for all of CAS, which may have to review upwards of 50 people a year. He indicated that the Hurwit proposal calls for more work because the PTR committee would have to rely on departmental information and wisdom anyway.

Mr. Wright suggested that another factor to consider is that people who are reviewed at the beginning of the year are treated differently than those who are reviewed at the end of the year because of the sheer numbers of people to review. Also, having dollars tied to these reviews forces people on the PTR committee to make extremely uncomfortable decisions that, essentially, deans are paid to make. Faculty might be unwilling to serve on such committees, and the people who do serve might have their own agendas. Finally, Mr. Wright believes PTR is an inefficient use of university resources and faculty time. Further, he said he believes the university would not lose its accreditation if it did not do post tenure review.

President Hurwit responded to these remarks by clarifying that it was his intention to have a PTR committee in each division of CAS, not the entire college, which would help minimize faculty workload. Further, the third year review is an internal, departmental matter and the sixth-year PTR committee is a school- or college-wide committee, but if a department wants to, it could elect a PTR committee at the department level. His purpose in making revisions to the SCC document was to reduce workload of tenured faculty and provide flexibility in the various schools and colleges. President Hurwit envisioned a new set of elected PTR committees at the school or college level. He was disturbed by the SCC's PTR policy having departmental colleagues award salary increases to others. The decisions made could lead to severe civil strife within departments. Once money is involved, he felt a legitimate PTR process can only be carried out on a school- or college-wide level.

Dean Joe Stone, College of Arts and Sciences, urged that there be flexibility in structuring PTR committees in individual schools and colleges so that they can deal with idiosyncrasies. It should be made clear that the PTR process honors the principles of shared governance by having an administrative structure to implement decisions. Vice President Peter Gilkey, mathematics, reiterated that one of the hardest things to judge is the standard in someone else's field. Therefore, mandating a committee structure for CAS will not work because it is too large and diverse. The PTR committee should be left up to the college to decide what works best for it.

Senator Tublitz suggested taking a straw vote on this second issue, then sending the proposal back to the Senate Executive Committee for revisions that will be brought back to the senate. The Senate Executive Committee should take the information from this discussion and the senate's straw votes and try to forge a compromise document.

A straw vote was taken that indicated a preference for the PTR committee to be departmentally based.

Ms. Marie Vitulli, mathematics, then introduced a motion to amend the motion on the floor by replacing it with the following:

A discussion ensued on the amendment to adopt the SCC PTR policy statement.

President Hurwit acknowledged that the two straw votes went against proposals he had made in his document, but noted other changes he made, specifically language protecting faculty by providing greater career flexibility. He believes that that section in his document is crucial. Further, he believes that the language in the SCC's PTR policy is too vague in several areas. And, President Hurwit said he tried to eliminate a second layer of mediation in the appeal process, again to reduce faculty workload. Although some of these changes are more minor, he believes they still are important changes. Hence, he urged against adopting the SCC's PTR policy, per se, suggesting that the senate should try to forge a document that President Frohnmayer could promulgate and support. Consequently, President Hurwit stated that he was in favor of Senator Tublitzí suggestion of referring these documents to the Senate Executive Committee in which case he would remove himself from that committee.

Senator Kintz asked if there were other options, to which Senator Westling replied that President Frohnmayer is under obligation to report to the accreditation agency this week.

Dean Stone suggested taking the existing PTR policy and adding to it, concentrating on three issues: (a) acknowledge more explicitly ways in which careers can evolve more flexibly over the course of a career, (b) include a statement for faculty rewards, and (c) put PTR into 3- and 6-year cycles of review. In other words, take the best statements of the various documents to implement faculty development, rewards, and both 3- and 6-year reviews, allowing for flexibility of implementation within and among schools and colleges.

As the discussion wound down, Senator Westling brought the pending motion on the floor to a vote, that is, to amend the main motion by replacing the original Ad Hoc PTR Committee's report with the Senate Conference Committee PTR policy statement. This motion to amend passed 15-5.

The Senate Conference Committee PTR policy was now on the floor for debate.

Vice President Gilkey, in concurrence with the suggestions of both Senator Tublitz and Dean Stone, moved the following:

ADJOURNMENT

With the lateness of the hour and no new business at hand, the meeting was adjourned at 5:35 p.m.

Gwen Steigelman

Secretary of the Faculty