The three purposes for estblishing the IFS represented, in the simplest sense, a will to power, a desire to be a partner in making decisions for the system as a whole. The Senate was begun in an atmosphere of impending crisis, at a time when higher education was preparing to run one of those budgetary gauntlets which have become such a dreary fact of life for Oregon state government in the last two decades. The creation of the Senate owed much to a spirit of renewed faculty activism in a time when "activism" was a catch-word. Even as discussions on the IFS continued, faculties were vigorously pursuing collective bargaining as another option for winning some control over their own collective destiny. To his credit, then Chancellor Roy Lieuallen encouraged the creation of the Senate and took an active role during its early years. Of course, Lieuallen appears to have been just as active in his efforts to head off collective bargaining at system institutions, and his support for the establishment of the IFS may well have been part of a stregy to accomplish that end.
 

From 1970-1975, meeting schedules remained consistent. The whole Senate met for the first time for dinner on Friday evenings followed by committee meetings that night and a session of the whole Seante on Saturday morning. The Executive Committee met between scheduled Senate meetings, independently of the Senate itself, to plan the agenda and deal with any urgent issues that might arise in the interim. Throughout the seventies, the Senate met only four times a year, once in Fall, once in Winter, and twice during the Spring term, though it referrred to its second meeting late in the Spring term as a "summer" meeting. From the beginning, also, the IFS rotated its meetings among the various campuses.

Any perusal of the minutes from the early seventies only reinforces the old cliche that there is nothing new under the sun. At their earliest meetings in 1971 and 1972, senators worried about tenure guidelines, tight library budgets, salary freezes, retirement benefits, faculty representation on the board, and, of course, the image of higher education among the voting public at large. In 1972, the Senate procured nonviting representation on Board committes, and its Chair attended, but did not report, at Board meetings.²

By 1975, Gary Huxford of WOSC was appointed as a "legislative liaison." He formed and ad hoc legislative liaison committee, whose members attempted both to stay apprised of events in the Legislature and to educate themselves on the intricacies of the state budget process. This group proved to be extraordinarily active during the legislative sessions of the seventies, writing a legislative newsletter, attending and testifying at meetings of the committees on Ways and Means and State and Federal Affairs, and maintaining a variety of contacts with individual legislators. The legislative liaison committee was later to form part of the lineage of the Association of Oregon Faculties.

With its early efforts to penetrate the Board and the Legislature, the Senate dealt with two of the Original reasons for its creation. The third issue, faculty governance, was framed early on by the debate over collective bargaining. In February 1972, even as it moved to invite separate representation from the UO Medical School (two senators), the IFS proposed to sponsor a state-wide conference on collective bargaining.³ With funds from the UO Institute of Industrial and Labor Relations, that conference was held, and the next several years witnessed continued debates and voting on that issue on individual campuses. By 1974, the Senate had stepped back from the issue, acting mostly as an information clearing house, until an error by the Chancellor in January 1976 deepened its involvement.

It all began in Monmouth. President Rice of WOSC had decided to retire at the very moment that the college was in the throes of its debate over collective bargaining. The first vote had been virtually dead even at 88 to 87 in favor, with one pro-vote contested. Realizing no doubt that the choice of a new president could be decisive in swaying the vote, Lieuallen seemed loathe to give the faculty a voice on the presidential search committee. In a move to exclude faculty representation, the Chancellor "asked" the Board at its January 1976 meeting whether it was appropriate that a faculty which had voted in favor of collective bargaining should now have a role in choosing its future management. This prompted a blast from the Oregon State Employees Association which charged in its newsletter that the Chancellor was trying to chill future collective bargaining votes by attacking the principle of faculty governance as it appllied to presidential searches.

The Senate met on January 16, and Maxine Warnath of Western brought up the whole affair as a principle of faculty governance. She argued that this issue was not peculiar to WOSC and urged the Senate to achieve "state system support for spelling out the position and the strength of the individual Faculty Seantes on each campus." Her colleague from Western, Dick Scott, disagreed and pointed to "the traditional position of the IFS toserve as an information exchange body rather than getting into the operational role." Scott's argument made this issue fundamental to the direction of the Senate, since it forced the institution to choose what path it would take. Lafayette Harter from OSU agreed with Warnath and moved that the Senate Fauclty Affairs Committee work with the Chancellor to strengthen faculty governance and make it explicit in the Oregon Adminstrative Rules. In other words, he moved that the IFS take a distinctly activist role by forcing institution presidents to share power with their faculties.

The minutes do not indicate the length of the debate, but it must have been protracted, since it resulted in a rare split vote--seven infavor, five against, and two abstaining. By rejecting Scott's position, the IFS chose visibility and activism over a more passive role characterized by academic debate, but the narrowness of the vote illustrated the discomfort felt by several senators at the choice. Interestingly, it was Western, where the issue was most divisive, whose senators best framed the two opposing philosophies, and it was OSU, with the strongest tradition of faculty governance, that pushed it forward.

The Senate now launched a dogged three year effort to force faculty governance into the ARs. The Chancellor proved cooperative, perhaps because he realized his error. (He had so irritated the faculty at Western that they would later vote to institute collective bargainin.) At any rate, drafts went back and forth between the Senate, the Chancellor's office, and the various system institutions, and wording on faculty governance was finally inserted into the Board's "Internal Management Directives" in May 1979. This effort was important, not because the exact wording necessarily preserved faculty governance, but because by its tenacity, the Senate demonstrated that there was an institution in the state to ensure that a faculty voice on campuses could not be ignored. The effort was important too for demnstrating the capacity of the IFS to work in an independent fashion with the Chancellor's office on an issue of considerable importance.
 
 

It is difficult to know who first broached the idea of a faculty lobbyist. It may have been Sally Malueg from OSU, who served as the Senate's legislative liaison during the 1977 session, or it may have been faculty member and state senator Clifford Trow during that same session. REgardless, when an angry Robert Quinton-Cox became Chair in June 1977, he moved the discussion forward. The IFS accepted the suggestion of Ted Brown of Eastern that faculty be polled to determine whether they would be willing to pay for a lobbyist. Eastern conducted the first such poll in the Fall of 1977 and found considerable support, and subsequent polls found similazr support at every other institution in jthe system except for OIT.⁴ A special ad hoc Faculty Lobbyist Activating Committee under Senator Fred Waller began to draw up a plan of action, and within two years, by early 1979, the Association of Oregon Faculties had come into being with a paid lobbyist.⁵

As it increased its workload and established the issues with which it would deal, the Senate began to make changes in its schedule. It maintained the same committee structure until the mid-eighties, but by 1975, the idea of meeting committees after a Friday dinner had proved unworkable, and they had moved to 4:00 P.M. prior to a new social hour. The purpose evidently was still to allow most faculty senators to meet their Friday classes and get to the Senate by late afternoon. Occasional sessions of the whole Senate were scheduled after dinner when necessary, but these appear to have been exceedingly rare. Even the shift to a 4:00 P.M. starting time proved inadequate, however, and in January1977, Brown of Eastern moved successfuly to begin committee meetings at 2:30 on Friday Afternoons.⁶

Senators also made efforts to meet personally with those whom they wished to influence. By June 1976, legislators were being invited first to meetings of the Executive Committee, which still met between regular Senate meetings, and then to those regular sessions. Only once, in January 1979, did the IFS succeed in getting an Oregon governor to meet with the Senate, when Governor Atiheh celebrated the evening of his inauguration by joining senators for dinner. Also in 1976 the Senate began efforts to invite Board members to join the senators for dinner and informal conversations afterward.
 

The single exception was the University of Oregon, where for a variety of reasons the idea of switching to the semester system really took hold. When, in 1983, the university asked the Board to allow it to convert as a matter of institutional autonomy, the Board turned it down. Kappy (Katherine) Eaton, UO sentor and president of the IFS in 1983, decided to appeal the issue to the Senate.⁷ She argued that the university should have the right to choose its own schedule, but by 1983, as will be shown, the Senate had taken a more conservative tone. There was now considerable opposition to allowing UO to go its own way on this issue. Credit transfer problems played a major role in the debate, but there may also have been some fear that if the flagship institution in the state made the switch, others would be forced into it. Opposition was particularly strong from Western, and no senators from Eastern, which supported the issue, were present for the vote on Eaton's motion to approve the UO move.⁸ The Senate tied, with President Eaton breaking it in favor, but the split decision weakned the case, and neutralized the IFS on the issue. UO senators continued to keep it alive, and the new Chancellor, William "Bud" Davis, reluctantly agreed to meet with the Senate on the conversion in October 1984. The IFS again split on the issue, agreeing only that it needed more study and information sharing among the system institutions. The Chancellor, seing that it enjoyed only limited faculty support, effectively killed it for the time being.

Of course, the semester conversion became the issue that would not die, continually pushed mostly by representatives from Eugene. Finally, in October 1986, the Senate resolved firmly to the State Board to cease endless duscussion and decide one way or the other. The Board reversed its earlier denial to the University of Oregon and now decided to convert the entire system. Considerable resources to this end were invested through 1989. Then, late in that year, under pressure largely from the canning industry which feard losing its seasonal student work force, the Board reversed itself again and scuttled the issue. In a resolution introduced from EOSC by Greg Monahan, the Senate reacted angrily to the waste of meager resources caused by the Board's reversal. Whether this stubborn issue will return to haunt the state system again yet remains an open question.
 

In 1978, faculty governance became an issue of particular concern at Eastern, whose aggressive and occasionally imperial president, Rodney Briggs, was attempting to fire tenured faculty. The Eastern experience framed the position of the Senate on the issue during the horrific cuts of 1981, and a very brief review of that experience, and the IFS discussion of it, will help to clarify the actions and responses of the Senate to the legislative session of 1981. That session, in turn, serves as a useful tool in understanding the much more serious threat to higher education in Oregon posed by Measure Five in the early nineties.

Briggs had been hired at Eastern in the early seventies to energize the institution and, according to some faculty there, to remove "dead wood." He abolished the faculty assembly at Eastern and created a College Assembly, which he himself chaired, and which diluted faculty governance by including students and classified staff. At the same time, the top administration changed and retirements were speeded up. His effort to fire two tenured faculty in 1978, however, bet with considerable faculty opposition and censure from the AAUP.

Eastern senator Charles Coate brought the issue to the IFS in October 1978. During this initial discussion, the Senate considered the need for some kind of system-wide guidelins buttook no action. Coate brought the issue forward again in January 1979. It now became a program reduction issue, since that was apparently the criterion under which the tenured faculty at Eastern had been fired. The Senate referred the issue to the Faculty Affairs Committee for discussion. At its next meeting, in April 1979, the IFS directed Chair Fred Waller to send a letter to Chancellor Lieuallen urging that program reduction not be used "as a casual redeployment of resources." At the same time, the Senate noted its hard-won victory at persuading the Board to place faculty governance language into its internal management directives.

Unfortunately, the IFS received no response from the Chancellor. This is curious, but the Senate was not then as close to the Chancellor's office as it would be under Vice-Chancellor Pierce in the mid-eighties. It is true also that Chancellor Lieuallen had decided to retire, and he may have wished to allow such issues to be decided by his successor. The Chancellor's impending retirement meant that concenrs over program reduction policies were joined by efforts on the part of the Senate to play some role in the search for a new Chancellor.

Briggs followed up his firing of two tenured faculty at Eastern by creatively "reducing a program." He simply defined one faculty member as a program, fired her, then, remarkably, he rehired her on a newly defined "teach-only" FTE, which constituted a 35% reduction in salary in return for relieving the faculty member from all committee and advising duties. This action helped to push the Senate under its new Chairman, OSU's Leo Parks, to send a position paper on program reduction to Vice-Chancellor Lemman. In essence, the paper argued that faculty should have a voice in both the definition of programs and the question of which should be cut. Lemman never responded to the IFS paper, but did send a memorandum to the state system presidents in which he ignored the IFS position and left the power to define programs in the hands of the institutional presidents. The Lemman memorandum raised considerable anger in the Senate, which resolved to empower Chairman Parks to discuss it directly with the retiring Chancellor and get the offending memo withdrawn. This time, Lieuallen responded, and in a letter to Parks of May 8, 1980, assured the IFS that the memo had been a draft, and agreed to hold on any further action until there had been fuller consultation.⁹ The Cjancellor also eventually agreed to place a senator on the search committee to replace him. The fall of 1980 was not a happy time. The country was sliding inexorably into recession, and Oregon faced severe shortfalls in its budgets. Likewise there was a ballot measure--the first of many--to reduce property taxes.¹⁰ As various campuses began discussing the possibility of financial exigency and substantial program cuts, the Senate asked its members to report on the extent of facullty input into the process at various campuses. The minutes from October 1980 supply no details specific to each institution, saying only that faculty input varied throughout the system from "minimal to fairly good.¹¹ With the legislature preparing to convene the following year, Cchairman Parks suggested that the IFS meet for three days in Salem in April 1981 in order to lobby legislators directly.

In January 1981, Eastern's senator Coate became the new IFS Chair. It was a very difficult time for the higher education in Oregon. The Legislature convened in an atmoshpere of voter anger over taxes, recession, and the imminint retirement of a Chancellor who had guided the system for many years. In April, the Senate convened over three days in Monmouth and Salem (Thursday through Saturday), meeting in small groups or individually with 25-30 legislators and concentrating especially on members of the Ways and Means Committee and those from the home districts of various campuses. Given the announced intention of the Legislature to cut all state departments by 10%, senators urged that in view ofpast funding shortfalls, higher education should be spared these draconian cuts. if such cuts had to be taken, the Senate urged that a system-wide program be created to provide for early retirements in place of dismissals, and outlined such a proposed program in detail. The Legislature and the Board ignored the IFS proposal and responded instead by affixing a tuition surcharge and ordering enrollment ceilings, and eerie precursor to another budget crisis ten years later. No move was ever made at any level to create a system-wide early retirement program, though the IFS would continue to press that option on the Chancellor and the Board through the eighties.

The effort by the IFS to gain a faculty role in defining and determining program reductions as a result of the 1981 budget cuts must be adjudged a failure. In large part, it ran into a stone wall in the Chancellor's office, where neither Lieuallen nor Lemman were prepared to force institution presidents to share the burden of defining and cutting programs with their faculty. A more determined effort by the IFS might have broken through that wall, but the Senate itself seems never to have been fully behind the effort, perhaps because faculty themselves had mixed emotions about just how much control they wanted over a process that might lead to the dismissal of colleagues. At any rate, the IFS had ceased to push the issue by April 1981, when the budget crisis and the necessity of saving the system from total ruin occupied the Senate's full attention. Only at Eastern, with its particularly painful experience, was afaculty role legislated into a new policy on program reduction. Later, in 1989, the IFS would replay the cuts of 1981 without any substantial revision in the script. During that 1981 session, the IFS again failed to persuade those in authority of its plan to ease dismissals with a system-wide early retirement program. Yet, the extraordinary marathon meetings with legislators in April probably did have a positive effect. Though the IFS opposed the idea of a tuition surcharge, the system would assuredly have fared worse without it.

Organizationally, the IFS had to deal in 1981 with the elevation of the University of Oregon Health Sciences Center in Portland to independent status as the Oregon Health Sciences University. Since universities merited three senators, the issue was whether or not the new university should have a third senator (this even though it seldom sent more than one!). The minutes are not specific about the source of opposition, but several senators evidently objected that the number of students should be considered in deciding how many senators should represent any institution. Other senators, probably Quinton-Cox of the new OHSU, countered that it should be the number of faculty that counted, and moved a constitutional amendment in October 1981 to give any institution with more than 750 faculty three senators. This amendment came up again when the Senate met at the Oregon Health Sciences University in April 1982. Quinton-Cox provided data showing OHSU as the smallest university with 783 faculty. Despite being the smallest university, however, it far surpassed the next largest institution in the system, SOSC, which had only
252. Quinton-Cox carried the day and the amendment passed.
 
 

After the legislative session of 1981, the Senate seems to have stepped back somewhat. UO Senator Larry Pierce, who represented the Senate on the Chancellor Search Committee, became Vice--Chairman in January 1982. The Senate, or its executive committee (the minutes are not clear), did interview the finalists for the position, and Chancellor Davis was apparently the favorite from among those interviewed. Yet, despite twinning" its choice for Chancellor, the Senate was singularly unsuccessful in attaining many goals or exercising a great deal of influence from 1981 to 1985. When the new Chancellor moved to change the way sabbaticals were paid (from 100%, 62.5%, and 50% of one year's salary respectively for one, two, and three term sabbaticals to 85%, 75% and 60%), the IFS discussed but took no action, not even to approve the change. When individual senators expressed some dissatisfaction with the performance of Bob Davis as a faculty lobbyist, the Senate not only took no action, but avoided placing any individual complaints explicitly into the minutes. When the Penk discrimination case was mentioned in January 1983, it merited no discussion at all, and it was in that year that the Senate split on the UO move to convert to semesters. The Senate continued to discuss important issues, often with exhausting thoroughness. These included the problem of part-time faculty, meager library budgets, and another property tax limitation measure on the ballot for November 1984. It took no action, not even to the point of passing a public resolution against the ballot measure. The IFS did manage to create its own stationary--twice, once in 1981 and again in 1982, and it debated endlessly about creating a permanent address for itself in Corvallis.
Meanwhile, having evidently impressed Chancellor Davis during the hiring process, Larry Pierce became the Chancellor's "special assistant" in 1983. Pierce asked if he could continue
to attend IFS Saturday meetings as a representative of the Chancellor, and the Senate concurred. From late 1983 through 1986, Pierce became a commanding presence at IFS meetings, holding the floor for longer and longer periods to explain state system policy and receive IFS input (which, to be fair, he seems genuinely to have valued). Yet, when a legislative bill to place two faculty members on the State Board appeared during the 1985, session, it was opposed by the Chancellor, and the IFS, under the evident influence of Pierce, took no action on it. As Pierce expanded his discussions with the Senate to include much of Friday, committee meetings became increasingly sporadic, and the Senate began occasionally to adjourn earlier on Saturday mornings.

It did rouse itself in May 1985 to ask the Chancellor to include a senator on the search committee to find a new ViceChancellor of Academic Affairs, but in his response in June 1985, Davis turned the IFS down flat. He then proceeded the following month to choose Larry Pierce from a nation-wide search as his new Vice-Chancellor. Thus, the Chancellor got the man he had obviously wanted from the beginning, while at the same time bypassing any faculty input and blunting any anger over the lack of input by choosing a former senator. It was a masterful bit of legerdemain. Pierce, his authority now much enhanced by a new title, continued an almost magical hold over the Senate through
1986. ¹²

On two issues, the Senate debated and discussed a great deal without taking action. The Legislature had threatened to consolidate and unify all grievance procedures throughout state government during its 1985 session. Though Pierce urged the IFS to draft its own preventative legislation in this regard, the Senate chose not to do so. Likewise, early retirement, the issue that first surfaced during the hectic legislative session of 1981, continued to provoke discussion. Several times from 1981 through 1986, the Senate shared information on this issue from various campuses. Finally, in October 1986, the IFS asked the Chancellor's office to put together a policy. It was a remarkable change from the activism of the seventies or even from 1981, when the IFS did not hesitate to compose and support its own policy.¹³
 

Two events occurred early in 1987 that began the process of pulling the IFS out of its eighties lethargy. The first was the election early in 1987 of PSU senator Nancy Tang as president and OSU senator Gary Tiedemann as vice-president. Both had lead a small number of other senators in complaining of what they perceived to be drift in IFS discussion and action, or inaction, on a variety of issues. The second event took place during a meeting of the Academic Council in January 1987, when Larry
Pierce told the council that "the IFS serves currently in an advisory role to my office." This evident declaration of "turf" moved Tang the following month to suggest diplomatically that, henceforth, the Senate should widen its reach, sending resolutions and copies of correspondence directly to the Board, Institutional representatives and legislators rather than through Pierce.

Pierce continued to attend IFS meetings, but the balance began to shift from a subordinate to a more equal relationship. Under Tang and Tiedemann, the Senate noted with approval the participation of faculty in the presidential search at Southern in 1987, and publicly urged the Board to make such participation a system-wide policy. In May, senators testified before the Legislature against a new grievance law in favor of allowing the system to repair the grievance process by modifying the administrative rules.¹⁴ That same month, the Senate amended its constitution to get rid of its moribund committees in favor of A task force/temporary committee system, and moved the election of officers from January to April in order to match the academic year.

New issues merited renewed vigor, but so did old ones. Retirement counselling for faculty had been discussed several times over the years, but only in November 1987 did the Senate finally take any action, forming a specific task force headed by OHSU senator Margaret Berroth to work with the Chancellor's office (in the person of Ron Anderson) to solve the problem.

Within two years, this group had pulled together a remarkable amount of information ind helped to make access to such counselling available on campuses that had not before enjoyed it. Another old issue, the twelve-month pay option, was made available to all system faculty as a result of IFS insistence. And, when Chancellor Davis decided to resign late in 1987, Tang worked in conjunction with Pierce to make room for two faculty members on the search committee to find a new Chancellor. When Pierce himself resigned in 1989, the Senate persuaded the new Chancellor, Thomas Bartlett, to allow faculty input in choosing his successor.
In essence, the history of the IFS since 1987 has mirrored its first years in the early seventies. Tang, elected to an unprecedented second term in 1988, and her successors, OSU senator Pat Wells and UO senator Charles R. B. Wright, have sought again (and successfully) to gain faculty participation n the administration of the system. IFS representatives now sit as voting members on the committees of the State Board. The IFS not only attends all Board meetings, but its president also reports officially to the Board on IFS discussions and actions. An IFS observer attends and occasionally takes part at all meetings of the Academic Council. Thanks in large part to the precedent supplied by Larry Pierce, the new Vice-Chancellor for Academic Affairs, Shirley Clark, attends IFS meetings, and senators have taken an active role in the various task forces put together by the new Chancellor to deal with the problems posed by Measure Five and the "new" budget crises of the nineties. Thus, the Senate has fulfilled its initial goals in ways which were unimaginable to the first representatives in 1970.

In addition to gaining an institutional and apparently permanent voice on the Board and in the Chancellor's office, the Senate has renewed its efforts to influence the Legislature, meeting once again in Salem during the 1991 session, testifying before legislative committees, and repeatedly inviting individual legislators to meet with the Senate. It has helped also to block mandatory drug testing of all state system employees and Job applicants, responded forcefully to efforts to mold education In the Portland metropolitan area, urged successfully that exit interviews be conducted of departing faculty to determine why they are leaving, and undertaken, in 1991, to study the relative increases in spending over the last decade on teaching and administration.
 
 

The IFS began its history with the intention of achieving a partnership with the Chancellor, the Board and the Legislature. Through the seventies, it achieved what was for the most part a balanced relationship with the Chancellor's office, and it managed for a few years to became visible at the Board. Through its legislative liaisons, the creation of the AOF, and occasionally effective public testimony before committees, the Senate also served to give faculties a voice before the Legislature. In the process, the IFS dealt with a large variety of complex issues, sometimes acting as a valuable information sharing forum, sometimes as a force for change. Then, in the
early eighties, with a new Chancellor and the new staff, the Senate became more passive. Though it still discussed a variety of important issues, it seldom acted on those issues or made much effort to make itself heard. To a large extent, it allowed the AOF to take over any legislative pressures the Senate had once exercised and abdicated any influence with the Chancellor's office to former Senator Larry Pierce. While some effort was made to persuade senators to attend Board meetings, they never took an active role at those meetings, and it is doubtful that any member of the Board even knew that they were present. only in 1987 did the Senate revive itself. By working with the Chancellor's office rather than beneath it, the IFS restored some sense of its independent voice, formalized its presence at the Board and renewed its more active role with the Legislature.

Within the Senate, the old tensions between the tendency only to discuss issues and the desire to act forcefully on them continue. In the best of times, these tensions have created a balance, by which the Senate has acted on Issues after informed discussion. In the worst of times, thorough discussion has lead only to more thorough discussion, and its lack of any will as expressed in resolutions, letters, and public testimony has prevented the IFS from influencing the decision-making process one way or the other. The Senate has proven most influential when united, weakest when divided. Of course, because the IFS is a democratic body, division in the Senate must perforce mirror division among Oregon's faculty, and it would be unfair and unwise to argue that such division has always had a negative impact. It is sufficient for senators to recognize that the faculties of Oregon have only ever exercised any degree of influence and power when they have spoken with one voice. Within the framework of higher education in Oregon, the only body capable of exercising that voice has been and remains the Interinstitutional Faculty Senate.
 
 

Three years ago, I was asked by Paul Stephas, Nancy Tang and Pat Wells if I would undertake to write a history of the IFS. In what seems by hindsight a painfully weak moment, I agreed. It required two years of effort to gather Senate records together from a variety of sources, chiefly former senators who had, bless their hearts, thrown nothing away. Both the companies that make filing cabinets and I are grateful to those folks. Once I had the materials in hand, it required some time to organize them. Luckily, the minutes of IFS meetings were remarkably complete, and this history is based largely on those minutes, which are now continuous (with one or two lacunae) from 1974 forward. Though they are sporadic before 1974, they are sufficient to give a sense of what was going on, and I have supplemented them with a assortment of materials, including IFS resolutions, correspondence, private notes, and a bewildering array of memoranda.

Instead of littering (and lengthening) this history with source notes, I have tried generally to indicate the source in the text. I should say explicitly that this is an interpretive history. Those seeking a simple chronology of IFS activities are invited to peruse the database that I have printed and placed at the beginning of the minutes in the IFS archives. Those archives, housed in five three-ring binders, are clearly labeled and will be entrusted to the IFS secretary for maintenance.

I hope that my present and future colleagues on the IFS will find this history useful, and I hereby entrust it to the Senate, to be copied and distributed to any individual or group that the IFS or its officers should at any time deem appropriate. I would hope that my colleagues find it sufficiently helpful to be given to new senators. That way, when the IFS decides to reinvent to wheel, it will at least have the benefit of a blueprint!
 

Amendments to the By-Laws of the Interinstitutional Faculty
Senate, moved and seconded for first reading at its meeting on
April 5-6, 1991 at Portland State University.

BL-2. Officers, Duties and Procedures for Nomination and Election
ORIGINAL: a. The Senate shall elect annually a president, a vice-president, and a secretary. The officers of the Senate shall serve until their successors, take office.
AMENDED: a. At its annual December meetings the Senate shall elect a president, a vice-president, a secretary and a liaison to the Academic Coun,,il. q'he term of these officers shall commence on January 1. In addition, the Senate shall nominate two of its members, one each from a university and a regional college (with alternates) to be recommended to the Chancellor for selection as members of the OSBHE Committee on Instruction. The same procedure shall be followed for naming two IFS representatives to the OSBHE Committee on Administration. The term of service on these committees shall be two years. The officers of the Senate shall serve until their successors take office.

Those officers elected to one-year terms in the spring of 1991 shall serve umtil December, 1992, or until such time as resignation from office requires their immediate replacement. In that case replacements shall be selected as outlined under BL-3, section b, paragraph (5).

Under "b. Duties of the Officers," amend paragraph (1) to add the following sentence and add two additional paragraphs ((3) and (4)),

AMENDED:(1) (Add to paragraph as presently worded] The President shall also act as official liaison to the Association of Oregon Faculties, but he/she shall have the power to delegate this duty to the Vice--President or to any Senator active in the AOF.

AMENDED:(4) The Senator elected as liaison to the Academic Council shall undertake to attend all meetings of the Council and shall report on those meetings to the IFS. In the event that that Senator is unable to attend a Council meeting, he/she shall, in consultation with the IFS President, attempt to find another Senator willing to act as alternate liaison for that meeting.
AMENDED:(5) Those Senators nominated to the OSBHE Committees on Instruction and Administration shall attend meetings of those committees and shall report on those meetings to the IFS. In the event that a Senate Representative is unable to attend a committee meeting, that Senator shall contact one of the alternates selected by the Senate in order to assure Senate representation on the appropriate committee.

Under "c. Time of Election," the two paragraphs shall be numbered (17and (2) but otherwise be left as presently worded.

Under "c. Time of Election two additional paragraphs shall be added:

AMENDED:
(3) If the official term of election as an IFS senator from an institution expires while the senator is serving a term as liaison to the Academic Council, the IFS shall elect a replacement upon the occasion of the last meeting which occurs during that senator's active term, or as soon as possible thereafter.

AMENDED: (4)If the official term of election as a Senator from an institution expires while the senator is servin he OSBHE Committee on Instruction or the OSBHE Committee on Administration, the IFS shall nominate a replacement upon the occasion of the last meeting which occurs during that senator's active term, or as soon as possible thereafter, and shall set that name before the Chancellor for appointment to the appropriate committee.

¹ The argument that the idea for the IFS originated at OIT came in the minutes of October, 1983

² There were then three Board Committees: Academic Affairs, Finance and Business Affairs, and rather inelegantly, "Finance and other Fiscal Affairs." The attendance of the Senate chair at Board meetings seems to have been somewhat irregular in the ealry seventies, and chairmen quit going altogether by 1977. Though the Senate attempted to persuade its members to attend Board meetings on their campuses, attendance was sporadic until the late eighties.

³ No one from the UO Medical School attended until the Fall of 1975, when William Clark began coming. He was later replaced by Robert Quinton-Cox, who remained the only representative from that institution until the early 80s.

⁴ As will become evident, Easterns support for a lobbyist may well have stemmed from increasing faculty discontent with the institutuion's president.

⁵ That was Bob Davis, who served as AOF lobbyist until 1984. After the creation of the AOF, the IFS ceased to debate or discuss faculty salaries as a major issue, and in 1986, the Finance Committee was dropped, preceeding the dissolution of the other committees by a year.

⁶ The Senate moved its starting time yet again in 1984, beginning a general session at noon on Friday followed by committee meetings at 2:30. This established the Friday afternoon/Saturday morning schedule that remains in effect at the time of writing in 1991 (and continues in 1997).

⁷ Though women had served as chairs of the IFS in the past, the election of Eaton prompted the senate to amend its constitution, retitling its executives to replace "chairman" and "vice-chairman" with the gender-neutral "president" and "vice-president." Quinton-Cox, ever the maverick, was the lone dissenter to the change.

⁸ Nonattendance at the meetings was a nagging problem for the Senate throughout the late seventies and early eighties, especially from institutions far from the Willamette valley.

⁹ This killed the memo, which was never revised, but it was later used by an assistant attorney general to misdefine system policy in an opinion against the Eastern faculty member who had been reduced to "teach-only" FTE.

¹⁰ The senate passed a unanimous resolution in opposition to Ballot Measure 6, and sent it to the Governor, Chancellor, State Board, Ways and Means Committee, and the institutional presidents. Curiously, it seems not to have sent a copy to the press.

¹¹ At Southern, a single Biologist was redifined as a program and dismissed. The atmosphere engendered by this and other actions such as those at Eastern once again fired up calls for collective bargaining, and the UO held a vote in 1981 [collective bargaining failed].

¹² 12 Davis appears to have met with the Senate only twice during his six years in office, far less than his predecessor or his successor.

¹³ One wit did write in the margin to his/her notes from a meeting that early retirement could lead to "the ultimate threat from faculty: if you don't treat me right, I'll stay." The chancellor's office never did create a system-wide early retirement system.

¹⁴ The bill passed anyway, but was vetoed by Governor Goldschmidt, and the ARs stood.