Excused: Eisert, Jenkins, Larson, Leahy, Moreno, Southwell, Westling, Whitlock
Absent: Brewington, Levi, Schombert, Wood
President Hurwit also indicated he has received an information sheet developed by Mr. Kirk Bailey, legislative relations, as requested by the senate during the November meeting. An electronic version will be posted on the web page and distributed to senators who can then alert their constituents. In anticipation of broad debate on several agenda items, President Hurwit reminded the audience that any member of the University Assembly could address the University Senate, but others must make their request to speak first to the secretary.
Mr. Engelking indicated there were massive submissions for winter and spring work (last year) and that half of these consisted of changes that came in May and June. They are in the process of trying to change techniques and restructuring from batch to continuous processing of submissions. The goal of the committee is to have a maximum processing time for course changes and additions of within two terms or 15 weeks from submitted until final approval, noting that courses with group or multicultural requirements would take somewhat longer due to additional steps these courses must go through. Programmatic changes also may take longer because they involve the Undergraduate and Graduate Councils. Further, the earliest that May submissions could be approved is at the December senate meeting.
Report From the Senate Ad-Hoc Committee on Post Tenure Review. President Hurwit introduced Mr. Mike Russo, chair of the Ad-Hoc Committee on Post Tenure Review Committee that was appointed last spring by past President Ann Tedards. The president thanked the committee members, all of whom met often and worked very hard on this issue (see report for list of members). The committee was charged with crafting a set of fair and positive guidelines and procedures for post tenure review. A paper copy of the report was distributed to senators and is available on the web site. President Hurwit indicated that at the end of Mr. Russoís presentation, he would entertain a notice of motion to accept the committee's recommendations. The senateís discussion of the committeeís report and recommendations will occur during the January and February (if necessary) senate meetings in order to give the topic the careful attention it deserves. (Full text of the Ad-Hoc Committee on Post Tenure Review Report).
The committee began drafting the report motivated in large measure by the recent accreditation report for the University of Oregon that strongly urged the university to move to a more frequent system of post-tenure review. The 13-member committee represented a number of different viewpoints and included several senators, department heads, and faculty concerned with issues of academic freedom. The discussion at committee meeting was very lively, collegial, and positive. This final report document was the result of substantial debate, a lot of revision, and was unanimously agreed to by all members of the committee. The linchpin of the recommended plan is that university needs to have collegial, and most importantly, developmental review. The committee felt that the university could use post-tenure review to produce significant opportunity to enhance the careers of faculty members.
The committee tried to move the process away from a cycle of evaluation and remediation and move toward a more developmental approach, employing peer review and consultation, and balancing structure with flexibility. (The report's appendices include a number of ways in which faculty are already evaluated.). For instance, the composition of the peer committee is left up the administrative units, and the third year review is also quite flexible. The goal was to maintain consistency, timing, and provide a basic framework for post-tenure review. The committee found considerable unevenness with reviews done by the various departments. Many units have annual or biennial evaluations that are considered post-tenure review, while others have specific post-tenure review. Also, there is some confusion between evaluative reviews and developmental reviews. The proposed policy change will clearly segment that which is evaluative and that which is developmental. The guiding principles followed were to: (a) respond to the mandate from the accreditation report; (b) provide for collegial, developmental review; (c) respect workload issues; and (d) balance structure and flexibility.
The report recommends that a Faculty Developmental Review replace the current post-tenure review process. The Faculty Developmental Review consists of a 6-year, major review and a third year, interim review. The 6-year review is defined as a career assessment and begins with the faculty memberís self-study of the past record and future goals. It is performed in consultation with a faculty peer committee and leads to a written agreement or to mediation if there is disagreement. New resources need to be made available to support the faculty memberís pursuit of long-term objectives. For example, the department might underwrite release time for the faculty member, additional travel funds might be made available for new research opportunities, or additional computing resources might be made available to assist the faculty member.
The third year review is an interim review and is a reflection on actions and outcomes as the faculty member works toward the 6-year plan goals. This is a substantive review and meets the accreditation purposes. The faculty peer committee provides constructive feedback on progress made toward 6-year goals. Departments have considerable latitude on format and information requirements of the review. The committee did not see it as inconsistent to use information from prior evaluations just to produce information and not be used in an evaluative mode. Departments will not see a significant increase in workload from the third year review but the 6-year review might require considerably more effort. The committee was very mindful and respectful of workload issues and wanted to provide the opportunity to piggyback the third year review with information collection that routinely occurs.
Senator Jim Earl, English, asked that a copy of the passage in the accreditation report indicating action the university should take be added to the appendix materials of the report. Senator Kenneth Helphand, landscape architecture, asked about the likelihood of this recommendation being more successful than the system now in place. Mr. Russo replied that there were resources and inducements to this plan and that it is in everyoneís best interest to implement it. He stated that the recommendations take the tenure review process to a system that is non-threatening, and he feels that the policy will work. It allows faculty to take a step back and think about their careers.
President Hurwit suggested that the policy recommended in the report was a matter to think about very carefully and cautiously over the next few months. The president recognized Vice President Gilkey who stated that he would introduce a motion to accept the committee's report and recommendations at the January senate meeting. (NOTE: See text of motion). President Hurwit acknowledged the notice of motion and officially discharged the Post Tenure Review Committee.
Resolution US 98/99-3 -- Recommendations Concerning the Riverfront Research Park. Senator Greg McLauchlan, sociology, moved the following resolution: RESOLVED, that the University Senate hereby urges the president to
Senator McLauchlan spoke to this slightly revised version of his group's original resolution, indicating that the significant change was in Section 2 where the language was changed from ìinstructî to ìrequestî and assigned the highest priority to the permanent protection of university land in the River View Sector. The earlier version of the resolution referred only to the university land "north of the railroad tracks". The change was primarily concerned with the parcel of land in the River View Sector. Several sponsors of the resolution met with President Dave Frohnmayer and Mr. Dave Hubin. Senator McLauchlan indicated that President Frohnmayer saw the need to build in the Gateway Sector to meet the goals of the Riverfront Research Park. One of the alternatives proposed to the committee, which became known as the Mike Pease Plan, was high-density development in the Gateway Sector and possible land exchange with the city to preserve the Greenway of the River View Sector. Senator McLauchlan and his co-sponsors agreed to modify the resolution by urging the president to request the appropriate committees to adhere to the RRP's recommendations, as opposed to instructing the appropriate committees to do so. Thus it remains a deliberative process instead of a top-down process. The floor was now open to discussion of the resolution.
Senator David Cohen, physics, asked for a definition of the River View Sector. Senator McLauchlan replied that the sector is that portion of the land that is bounded on the west by the Millrace, on the north by the river, on the east by the boundary line, and on the south by the railroad tracks.
Senator Michael Olson, ASUO, stated his support of the resolution. He encouraged further movement toward educating the public on the Riverfront Research Park. Support of this resolution would help to educate the community on the positive aspects of the RRP and reflects the spirit of the RRP committee. Senator McLauchlan added that the resolution is offered in the spirit of support of the committee and support of all who have given their time and effort to this matter. He suggested that the land in question is some of the most valuable and prestigious land that the university possesses and is part of the larger university's natural environment. It would be a wonderful extension of the Willamette Greenway. The resolution does not reduce the capability of the university to build the RRP using the original plans -- instead it is meant to preserve the environmental values on that sector of land. Senator McLauchlan went on to note one slight difference between the proposed resolution and the committee report, found in Section 2. This calls for the university and the planning committee to commit to the preservation of the River View Sector now instead of waiting five years to do so. By committing to preserve this section now, the controversy can be brought to a peaceful resolution. The resolution is a reasonable compromise.
Mr. Theodore Palmer, mathematics, and chair of the RRP Review Committee spoke next. He indicated that he agreed to chair the committee because he was not involved in its development and he did not sign any of the petitions. Like many others, his original view of the RRP was that it was a failure and that it developed very slowly. However, after researching the project, he found that the RRP was doing about right and was not a failure. It was developing slowly because there was a great deal of controversy that went through the courts and caused great delay. Further, development has gone slowly because the university devoted minimal resources to it and staffing was not adequate. Also, the university has no need for quick development; because the land already belongs to the university, there was no borrowed money to pay back, unlike many other research parks.
Mr. Palmer stated his support for the first part of the resolution because it summarized aspects of the report. But he was not in favor of the Pease Plan that was done without the widespread consultation that goes into planning at the university and that went in the original master plan of the RRP. Mr. Palmer was not persuaded by the Pease vision of development and said it contradicts parts of the original planning which is more balanced. He agreed that we need to pay attention to the values of the riverfront and suggested that the proposals made in his committee's report are intended to increase that protection and to make certain that development is done right. One thing the committee was not able to agree on was the road through the River View Sector. Such a road is important to any reasonable development. The Pease Plan does not show a road through the River View sector. Mr. Palmer reminded everyone that the land came to university when it was a gravel pit and in the past 30 years the university has improved the area. His personal view is that such a large piece of land such as the River View Sector is not likely to remain undeveloped. The proposal as it is now is probably the best one could hope for. He hopes that the development will lead to people to conclude that it was done right, the river has been preserved, and a wide area of land has been used for a purpose which can be valuable to the university and the community.
Senator Suzanne Clark, English, and a co-sponsor of the resolution said that it was intended to endorse the RRP review committee's work. Citing a recent report indicating the university was one of the best places to go to school because of its environment, she felt it is important to endorse the significance of environmental values to the mission of the university.
President Dave Frohnmayer expressed his deep gratitude to committee members who represented a cross section of the university who cared about the future of the university and were absolutely free to reach conclusions they felt were in the best interests of the university pursuant to this process of periodic review. They devoted hundreds of hours to this task and he said they presented a thoughtful and balanced report. Subject to his obligation to consult with the Riverfront Park Committee, the mayor, and Eugene City Council, he accepted the report in its entirety on behalf of the university and with enthusiasm. It is an exemplary model of how deliberative processes should work at the university.
President Frohnmayer was pleased to see that Section 1 of the resolution does endorse the park. He indicated that parts of Section 2 might be inconsistent with committee findings. In Section 1, the most important item is 1.a., which states that no building be cited in the River View sector without the process of review equivalent to that which has been undertaken. He indicated that was an important procedural protection of enormous substance of a very great and valuable parcel of land. As a steward of the university, he would be loath to commit it to any use without the most careful understanding and stewardship. However, we do not know what the university, which is now landlocked, may need by virtue of physical resources and land in the foreseeable future and in the 21st century. Thus, he thought Section 2 "flies in the face" of the thoughtful recommendation contained in 1.a. to say irrevocably, for any purpose, that we would dedicate the RRP for one purpose as opposed to having a review process that allows future generations to reevaluate the needs of this community and institution. The inflexibility that might be left by foreclosing as opposed to preserving part of the sections of the River View parcel troubled the president as an ambiguity in the statement if it were to be adopted in its present form.
Senator Gene Luks, computer science, stated that since hearing about the compromise, he had consulted with his constituency and found nobody in favor of changing the "no development" concept in Section 2. He supported the resolution and thought that Section 2 did not show inflexibility as President Frohnmayer indicated. To include the assigning of highest priority for the protection of the property was in the spirit of the people who signed the original petition against development of the RRP. Senator Luks said the resolution should not be changed without going back to the community and getting their views.
President Hurwit asked for clarification about the land being referred to in Section 2. Is this to be interpreted as all university land or some university land? Senator McLauchlan indicated that all university land was meant. For greater clarity, a motion to amend the wording of Section 2 to include the words "of all" after "permanent protection of" was made, and with little discussion, passed. Section 2 as amended now reads:
Senator Dave Boush, business, questioned Section 1.c. regarding the 100-foot setback. Such a setback would be problematic in the Gateway area making it difficult to develop. Senator Engelking indicated that we might want to consider not putting in the road. Otherwise you will have to give up the 100-foot setback. Senator Palmer stated that the 100-foot setback question would have to be looked at flexibly. He spoke of the problem of the physical plant's location. Until that is solved, the only place to develop is the pole yard. He noted that the EWEB building is only 30 feet back from the river and he feels cramped when going by that area which is why he supports the 100-foot setback. He was also concerned that very dense development in the pole yard area would mean that many buildings would have to overhang the river. He cautioned to leave the planning up to the planners. Individuals can express their desires, but the details of planning must be worked out and negotiated. He believes that is why the president is concerned with what he considers rigidity. Planners can not work out such problems if they are given a mandate that is too restrictive.
President Frohnmayer addressed a number of these issues raised. He stated that the university would like to relocate the Physical Plant if it were able to, simply to have more university land. That does not seem possible at the moment. He noted that the review committee recommended that the River View Sector be the last to be developed. The president assured the committee and the Senate, urging them to take this information to their constituents, that there is no present plan or proposal to develop the River View Sector, neither at this time nor in the foreseeable future. Thus, to lock up the university's options out of fear that there exists some secret plan to "bring the bulldozers in over night" is a mistaken viewpoint. President Frohnmayer assured everyone on his personal honor that there is no such plan and adequate safeguards would be made for future generations of the university to deliberate in the same way that we have in this process.
Senator Nathan Tublitz, biology, stated his feelings that development destroys the riverfront. The Gateway sector development will take away green areas. He wondered why the university could not come up with alternative sites to develop or identify for research park development such as the Coca-Cola bottling plant or ODOT land along Franklin Boulevard. Senator Tublitz suggested that there are many lands that the university could identify for research park development. He indicated that it is his firm belief that the Willamette Greenway needs to be preserved, which means no building north of the tracks -- forever. Further, he suggested amending the current proposal to that effect. This was ruled out of order because it fundamentally changes the resolution under discussion, he was counseled to make such a notice of motion later in the meeting.
Senator Larry Dann, finance, felt that the first two speakers indicated they supported the committee's report but the resolution does not really do that. Rather, the resolution seems to build in rigidity, such as the 100-foot setback. Section 2 using the term "highest priority" is another example of rigidity. Consequently, he felt that there are ample safeguards built in to the report and that the resolution is unnecessary because it ties the university's hands. On the other hand, Senator Linda Kintz, English, felt that the committee report gives too much away. She doesn't see that assigning the high priority is a problem, and felt that the resolution does not assign inflexibility except where it needs to be.
Senator Paula Burkhart, research and graduate education, asked for a point of clarity, asking if the resolution was only advisory to the president and the university and not binding. President Hurwit stated it was advisory onl, not legislative, and in no way instructs the president.
Senator Jereme Grzybowski, ASUO, agreed that the resolution was advisory, but noted that it was important to compromise. He believes the Research Park is of great value to both the university and the students. Stating that we must also preserve open space for future generations, he does not see this resolution as tying the university's hands. He was in favor of both Sections 1 and 2.
Senator Gilkey suggested that the resolution be separated into two resolutions, Section 1 and Section 2, respectfully. His amendment was seconded and was on the floor for discussion. Senator McLauchlan viewed this action as "unfriendly" and urged that it not be adopted, explaining that the two recommendations go together and are part of a larger piece. Senator Helphand concurred saying that if the major goal is to preserve the land, then other things need to happen; recommendations noted in Section 1 are augmented in Section 2.
The question was called. The amendment to separate the resolution into two resolutions was defeated by voice vote.
There was brief discussion concerning the accuracy of assessing public sentiment regarding the RRP as registered by surveys and at public meetings. Senator Palmer indicated it is not true that the response you get at a public meeting is indicative of the response you get from a large group as in a vote taken. Ms. Marian Smith, music, noted that polls taken on this topic were informal and should be view as such.
Stepping momentarily out of his role as senate president, President Hurwit added a personal thought. He indicated that he felt the pole yard was a waste and could not be developed -- he would not want his children to play there even if it were developed into a beautiful park. Senator Tublitz countered saying that the same ideas were put forth during the development of Alton Baker Park but now it is a very lovely area enjoyed by the citizens of Eugene. Clearly, Senator Tublitz suggested, the pole yard is an eyesore but it can be changed back to native habitat in much the same way as Alton Baker.
Sensing the end of the debate, Senator Jim Terborg, business, asked once more about the meaning of Section 2, that there should be no development in the River View Sector. Senator McLauchlan indicated that yes, that is the intent. Rather than making a blanket statement about development, it makes it clear that if you do something in another area you might impact River View and other sectors. This means "no" to development of buildings and structures and " yes" to restoration development. Senator Ry Wagner, biology, said he appreciated the committee's work but he cannot support the resolution. He does not see that high density in Gateway is viable. There are other ways to solve the process and not require buildings. He is not convinced that building all buildings in the Gateway Sector will work.
At this point, the question was called. Resolution US98/99-3 was put to a hand vote (20 in favor, 10 against). The resolution passed as amended.
RESOLVED that the University Senate hereby urges President Frohnmayer to set aside the university lands in the River View and Gateway Sectors from future commercial development and to designate these lands for open space, recreational fields, and natural areas. (NOTE ADDED: see text of motion)
Gwen Steigelman Secretary of the Faculty