Minutes of the University Senate meeting Wednesday May 9, 2001
Present:
L. Alpert, B. Altmann, E. Bailey, M. Bayless, R. Cambreleng, E. Campbell, S.
Cohen, D. Conley, D. Dugaw, J. Earl, C. Ellis, M. Holland, S. Kohl, C. Lachman,
K. Lenn, R. McGowen, G. McLauchlan, D. Merskin, R. Moore, M. Nippold, C.
Phillips, M. Reed, L. Robare, N. Savage, J. Schombert, S. Stolp, D. Strom, F.
Tepfer, N. Tublitz, T. Wheeler,
Excused:
R. Darst, J. Dawson, M. Epstein, C. Gary, D. Hawkins, R. Kellett, P. Mills, M.
Vitulli, M. Weiner, P. Wright
Absent:
T. Arnold, D. Dinihanian, J. Hosagrahar, S. Jones, L. Kintz, J. Raiskin,
S.Shauger
CALL
TO ORDER
Senate
President Jim Earl called the meeting to order at 3:05 p.m. in room 123
Pacific.
APPROVAL
OF THE MINUTES
Senator Chris
Phillips, mathematics, asked that the minutes be amended to reflect his comment
that dead week was not recognized in other mathematics departments with which
he had been associated. The change was
noted and the minutes were approved as amended.
ANNOUNCEMENTS
AND COMMENTS FROM THE FLOOR
Spring
Faculty Election Results. Secretary Gwen Steigelman, academic
affairs, distributed handouts with the spring election results and noted that
the information was also posted on the senate web site.
New
Senate organizational meeting Wednesday, May 23rd. President Earl reminded the carry over
senators of the incoming senate’s organizational meeting to welcome newly
elected senators and to elect the vice president to be held in the Browsing
Room of Knight Library. President Earl
extended thank-you’s to members of the Senate Executive Committee and many
others who have helped in senate related activities throughout the year.
PEBB
informational meeting Thursday, May 24th. Ms. Helen Stoop, human resources, extended an
open invitation to attend a meeting concerning benefits scheduled for Thursday,
May 24, 2001 from 1:30 p.m. to 3: 00 p.m. in the EMU Fir Room. The purpose of the meeting is to solicit feedback
and allow discussion regarding OUS’s participation with the Public Employee
Benefit Board (PEBB). There will be a
discussion of factors leading to the continuation of OUS in the PEBB program,
an opportunity to discuss health care insurance costs and some of the trends
facing OUS participation in PEBB. It
also will be an opportunity for discussion pertaining to economic and social
welfare affects on the current PEBB contribution design, that is, tiered versus
flat contributions. Anyone who feels
strongly about tiers, especially, is encouraged to attend.
PEBB will remain with OUS in for calendar year
2002. Due to the rising healthcare,
PEBB has solicited nationwide bids and is currently interviewing insurance
companies, choosing finalists during June.
Currently, the classified employees are on a tiered program as opposed
to the flat contribution they have had in past years. The Board wants to continue comprehensive plans for families and
does not want to rely on HMOs, thus PEBB is moving away from HMOs toward the
Preferred Provider Plans. The rates and
other more detailed information will remain unknown until the insurance
finalists are chosen.
During a short question and answer period, the
terms “tiered” and “flat” were clarified to mean that with a flat contribution,
the expenditure is the same regardless of whom is being covered. With a tiered contribution, who is covered
and the amount of coverage directly affect the rate. The idea behind a flat contribution is that it allows more
families to afford health insurance. Senator David Conley, education, asked
about the feasibility of either OUS or PEBB not having tiers while the other
employee groups continue to have them.
Ms. Stoop responded that currently, OUS is the only group that uses the
flat contribution. PEBB is currently
pushing to encourage OUS to adopt tiers.
This issue is still under discussion and faculty input is requested at
the May 24th meeting.
Questions were raised as to the budgetary impact
this may have on various departments on campus. Senator David Strom, physics, expressed concern related to a
rising sentiment that insurance was cheaper for faculty than for classified
employees. He also wondered about the
budgetary impact being directly related to the demographic makeup of each
department, as well as classified employees currently using the tiered program
to cover the different plans cost. Ms.
Stoop responded by saying it is less favorable for faculty due to the aging
faculty population. There may be a
savings if OUS goes with a self-funded plan as it has in the past. These issues have been reviewed with
consultants, but at this point, the answers are unknown until the bids return
and more information is obtained.
REPORTS
FROM STANDING COMMITTEES
Spring
2001 Preliminary Curriculum Report. Mr.
Paul Engelking, chair of the Committee on Courses, presented the spring
preliminary curriculum report, asking that any errors or typos be reported to
him or to Ms. Gayle Freeman, registrar’s office. Mr. Engelking also distributed a flow chart summary of academic
review requirements for new instructional programs, and suggestions for
revising definitions of undergraduate majors, minors, and certificates. Additions to the report are as follows:
1.
LA 260, Understanding Landscapes, has been
approved for Group 1, Arts & Letters
2.
Religion 316, 324 and 325 will be added back in
as courses that have been previously taught.
They will be taught next fall, winter and spring terms.
3.
Art History 428, 528, 451, 551, 434 and 534 will
be reinstated based on fact that they will be taught in the near future.
4.
In regard to Art History 450 and 550, not enough
information has been received to advise when the courses will the taught
again. AAA may be able to assist with
this.
Senator Conley asked what criteria are used in
evaluating a course to determine if it is a 3 or 4 credit course. Mr. Engelking responded that the predominant
factor is the amount of extra work it takes the student to complete the class. Other factors include student time,
additional assignments, extra effort, and time management. Examples of additional effort were given as
self-guided student work, workshops, and writing assignments to be completed
after hours. Mr. Engelking remarked
that the committee is open to any ideas or suggestions on this matter as they
are looking for more guidance on this subject.
(See http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~uosenate/dirsen001/s01cur.html
for the final report.)
Senate Budget Committee. Vice President Nathan Tublitz, biology,
indicated that although no budget committee report was available for this
meeting, there would be a report at the Senate’s May 23rd
organizational meeting regarding the progress on faculty salary and compensation
over the past year. This report should
also include salary comparisons and indications for the upcoming year.
Committee
on Committees. As
chair of the Committee on
Committees, Vice President Tublitz presented the slate of recommended
appointments to non-elected university committees for 2001-02. Several senators commented regarding listed
individuals who may not be available to serve on the respective committee,
which was taken under advisement by the chair.
With no other comments or
changes, the senate voted unanimously by voice vote to accept the
recommendations and to forward them to President Frohnmayer for his
consideration and appointment.
Senate
Nominating Committee.
Senator Barbara Altmann, romance languages, chair of the Senate
Nominating Committee indicated that so far, Senate Greg McLauchlan, sociology,
is the only nominee for vice president of the University Senate. Additional nominations for senate vice
president are open until the organizational meeting, May 23rd and
may be sent to Senator Altmann or President Earl.
·
Grant an additional year for continued study of
this problem,
·
Create a Standing Committee on this issue, and
·
Conduct two surveys developed by the committee,
one to go to the colleges/schools and department heads, and the other to all
nontenure-tract instructional faculty for their input.
(See http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~uosenate/dirsen001/AdHocNonTenure.html
for full text of the report and recommendations.) President Earl accepted the committee’s report and indicated that
he will take all of the
recommendations under advisement. Prior
to the end of his term, President Earl will request funds to conduct the second
survey. In asking if there were any
comments or questions, several senators remarked about the surprising
statistics reported, for example, in English and foreign languages nationwide,
tenure tract faculty number only 30% of the faculty.
The
Senate of the University of Oregon recommends that the Oregon State Board of
Higher Education confer upon the persons whose names are included in the
Official Degree List, as compiled and certified by the University Registrar for
the academic year 2000-2001 and Summer Session 2001, the degree for which they
have completed all requirements.
The
motion to confer degrees for academic year 2000-2001 was passed unanimously by
voice vote.
The motion seeks to update all changes and
amendments that predate this motion, and replace them with the current charges,
memberships, and reporting structures.
Vice President Tublitz noted that all committees had been contacted and
asked for their updates, if any. He
also remarked that most of the committees were long-standing committees and
that the revisions, for the most part, were minor. Further, four committees were moved from an administrative
reporting line to a senate reporting structure, including the Campus Planning,
Childcare, Environmental Issues, and Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender
Concerns committees.
President Earl emphasized that the committees
themselves generated their own revisions, not the Committee on
Committees. Senator Conley wondered if
there was a strikeout version of the legislation that would indicate the scope
and scale of the proposed revisions, to which Vice President Tublitz replied
that there was not; but he reiterated that the changes were minor to medium,
and all were thought out by the respective committees and voted on by the
committees.
One senator noted a number of sentences with
fragments, which resulted from a faulty electronic file transmission. Acknowledging that the computer-generated
glitches were not on the original paper copy of the legislation, Senator Conley
indicated he was in favor of the motion and suggested that rather than delay
the vote to another meeting, the motion be supported with a good faith effort
to correct the electronic version of the legislation. With no further
discussion, Motion US00/01-6 to revise enabling legislation of university
committees was approved unanimously by voice vote.
Athletics
at NCAA Division I universities are undergoing rapid expansion and
commercialization, resulting in an "arms race" universities find
increasingly difficult to control. These concerns have been summarized by Myles
Brand, president of Indiana University, in an article in the NCAA News of
February 12, portions of which are appended below. It is a common proposition
in the national dialogue on this issue that meaningful reform of
intercollegiate athletics must begin with the university presidents of
individual athletic conferences.
Therefore,
the faculty and university senates of the ten universities in the PAC-10
Conference join together to make the following recommendations:
1.
We urge the presidents and chancellors of our ten universities to begin serious
discussions aimed at moderating the exponential growth of athletic programs and
budgets in the PAC-10. We urge them to put this topic on the agenda of their
June meeting, and to set as a first priority for the PAC-10 the development of
an appropriate strategy and its implementation.
2.
Further, we endorse the recommendations made in the appended essay,
"Presidents Have Cause, Means to Reduce Arms," and urge the
presidents to address them as the basis for their discussions.
(See http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~uosenate/dirsen001/US0001-7.html
for text of the appended essay by Myles Brand.)
During the discussion that followed, Senator
Conley stated his support for the resolution and asked what the perception is
of our athletic program as an asset if our geographic isolation is taken into
consideration. President Frohnmayer
responded as a 7-year member of the NCAA Board of Directors, saying that
collegiate athletics at the level of competitiveness that we have attained at
the UO has been positive for the university.
He noted that tens of millions of dollars that come to the UO by virtue
of those who are involved, in one way or another, in the athletics program
might not otherwise have been realized.
It is in a quantifiable way that these are tens of millions of dollars
that the university might not otherwise have.
On a less measurable scale is the assistance that athletics gives the UO
in keeping devoted alumni. The
president went on to say that regarding the issue of the “arms race”, it is a
serious issue and is being engaged as such by the campus president, the
chancellor, and the NCAA. He concluded
that in his short run as university president the upsides of athletics have far
exceeded the downsides.
Senator Dianne Dugaw, English, commented on her
concern that the issue is about the athletic program being competitive, rather
than the university being as competitive in scholarly fields and with salary
levels that will retain faculty.
Senator Tom Wheeler, journalism, mentioned that the term “arms race”
originates from the cold war and inherently means that there is an enemy
building up something so the involved groups attempt to outspend each
other. President Earl responded that
because of the nature of athletics, the schools are competing for talent,
players, coaches, and facilities. The whole
athletic budget revolves around attracting these players and there is a need to
keep up with other schools. Despite our
size in comparison to other Division I schools, we do need to do this. Senator Wheeler commented that he completely
supports this resolution and assumes this effort would be pointless if this
resolution was not looked at as a first step, and there were not more
substantive resolutions coming in the future.
He also pointed out the resolution says to resist subsidizing athletics
from the academic side of institutions, which needs to be focused on, along
with the extent to which it affects the funding of the athletic mission.
Vice President Tubliz indicated that the Senate
Budget Committee has been looking into two aspects of the athletics subsidy
issue. First, regarding the
relationship between salaries and benefits for athletic coaches versus academic
instructors or professors, last year the administration agreed to be
competitive in the compensation packages.
Second, it has been agreed to reduced subsidies, or money from general
funds, to athletics over a 7-year period, after renovations to Autzen Stadium
were approved and completed. A
discussion is ongoing regarding how to accelerate that time scale.
Senate President Earl again touted the
resolution as the first step that is representative of faculty interests. It is
also an attempt to insert athletics into a national debate. The faculty’s point of view is moderate; the
arresting features of the resolution are that 10 schools have athletic
departments and schools that are in fierce competition with each other while
the faculty are not in that competitive mode.
President Earl noted that although he wants the best for the UO, he
notices that all faculties are of one mind on this issue, saying that the
concept of faculty solidarity will help cut across the competition.
Senator Chris Ellis, economics, supported the
motion, saying the current spending is altruistic and wasteful competition
since thee is a finite group of talented athletes. Mr. Brad Shelton, chair of
the Intercollegiate Athletics Committee, advised that the athletics department
is behind this resolution, saying that they understand first hand the economics
of the issue. They view this arms race
as a train headed fast for derailment.
President Frohnmayer commented that the
so-called athletics subsidy has been reduced over the last several years and is
something that needs to continue.
Further, he noted that the monies received from athletics are for the
most part money that otherwise would not be obtained, as it is not state
subsidized. State universities are
funded from money for higher education.
Senator Rebecca Cambreleng, ASUO, commented that
the student’s view is that the benefits of athletic competitions stay within
the athletics department, that the money simply provides for more athletic
scholarships, and other perks that non-athlete students do not receive. Thus, the resolution is a good first
step. Vice President Tubliz reiterated
the real issue behind the resolution is “academics first”. Over the past 15 to 20 years the increase in
academic spending is lower then athletic spending. He further pointed out that next year he will appoint a task
force to continue this progress.
With the discussion winding down, the resolution
was put to a vote. Resolution US00/01-7, the PAC-10 joint
resolution on athletics, passed with all but one senator voting in favor of the
resolution.
Resolution
US00/01-8 -- Human Rights Initiative. Before
introducing this resolution for discussion, Mr. David Frank, chair of the AD
Hoc Committee on Trademark Licensing and Monitoring, took a moment to thank
outgoing Senate President Earl and to acknowledge his leadership and guidance
of the senate this past year. President
Earl’s presidency achieved its goals of change, discussion, and debate on some
key topics such as athletics, nontenure-related instructional faculty analysis,
and the ad hoc committee studying the WRC issue. Mr. Frank’s comments were met with appreciative applause from the
senators.
Mr. Frank brought the following resolution to
the floor, which was a direct product of his committee’s earlier
recommendation. (See http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~uosenate/dirsen001/US0001-8.html
for full text of the committee’s report and recommendations.)
Members
of the committee differed on many points, but are unanimous in recommending
that the University should initiate research and instruction on the host of
human rights issues raised by the WRC controversy. In our discussions with industry representatives, monitoring
experts, and labor rights activists, we were told that there is a great need
for sustained research on such human rights issues as the living wage, working
conditions, and the right to form labor unions. Consistent with the research
mission of the University of Oregon, the committee calls for the serious study
of these and other related issues. Toward this end, we would encourage
University of Oregon research centers (e.g., Center for the Study of Women in
Society, the Humanities Center) Endowed Chairs (The Wilberta and Carlton Savage
Chair of International relations and Peace, the Morse Chair), and disciplinary
departments that address human rights and labor issues to collaborate on a
research and educational program that illuminates the meaning of human rights
in a global economy.
The
Senate should petition the administration to form a programmatic approach to
the research of and instruction in human rights, particularly as they relate to
condition of workers in developing countries. The funding for this proposal
might come, in part, from licensing fees. Accordingly, we envision the creation
of:
·
Internship
programs for students to learn about the characteristics of human rights, codes
of conducts, and the practice of monitoring. In our earlier discussions with
the Foundation's Board of Trustees, we were told that funding might be
available for educational opportunities that would expose our students to these
issues. We could foresee University of Oregon students emerging as
professionals prepared to work with non governmental organizations, compliance
officers in multi-national companies, and international and national
governmental agencies.
·
Interdisciplinary
degree programs that would join the expertise of professors who might reside in
different departments.
·
A
Research Center for the study of Human Rights. This Center could sponsor
research on the issues that have been at the center of debate on this campus.
Mr. Frank spoke to the resolution saying that it
would issue a programmatic approach to the research and instruction of global
human rights, with particular emphasis on the conditions of workers in
developing countries. Further, he
indicated it was a 2-phase approach.
First, the idea is that chairs would coordinate efforts to create a
research program in human rights. For
example, the Law School and chairs of the Morse Committee and the Savage
Committee have met to deliberate on a 2-year program on global human
rights. Second, the university should
consider creating a Center for Study and Research on Global Human Rights. Mr. Frank reiterated that the emphasis is on
research and instruction. He foresees
no general fund money needed to fund this program in the first phase.
In the discussion period that followed, Senator
Conley asked if there is a precedent for the senate to endorse a significant
degree program or initiative. Senate
Parliamentarian Paul Simonds advised that the charter for the Senate says the
members shall govern the university, and, the senate has had an ongoing course
committee for reviewing, presenting, and forwarding the final approval for
programs. There is along-standing
precedent for faculty to be involved in the process. Senate President earl agreed, saying that because this proposal
is in the form of a resolution, it is not legislation, per se, that sets
the creation of a program into process.
Rather, the resolution is in essence a petition to the administration
for continuance of dialogue and research on the human rights issue.
Senior Vice Provost Lorraine Davis, academic affairs,
stated that the administration does not want the discussion that went on
regarding the Workers Rights Consortium issue to cease. In support, she said that the resolution
should refocus the issue. The
resolution does not create, but rather recommends, and enables this dialogue to
continue. Senator Altmann also
emphasized that the first phase for students is to research and study the human
rights issues.
Senator Phillips expressed concern regarding
funding for the recommendation, citing the current funding shortages in the
humanities, among other areas, when the university is already over
committed. He offered the following
amendment to the resolution:
No new resources should
be used for this proposal. No present
or future resources should be diverted from other departments or programs for
this proposal. No new faculty positions
should be created in connection with this proposal. Rather the program on Human Rights should consist of courses
offered by pre-existing University of Oregon departments. This program and the Research Center on
Human Rights should be staffed using pre-existing faculty position in
pre-existing University of Oregon Departments.
Participation in this program and the Research Center on Human Rights
must be strictly voluntary for departments, individual faculty members, and
students.
Senator Jim Schombert, physics, asked about the
fiscal impact of the resolution; and what would it cost. President Earl
reiterated that there is no motion to establish curriculum or set in motion the
development of a program; this is only a resolution to consider the creation of
a program. There is not financial
impact on a recommendation to consider; that will come later. Further, the report has a number of
explanatory clauses aimed at Senator Phillip’s concern.
Senator McLauchlan spoke against the amendment,
saying it would put a straight jacket on departments. He re-emphasized the importance of continuing dialogue on the
issues surrounding the fact that most of the world’s population does not enjoy
a living wage or live in developed countries.
He believes the resolution without the amendment will help to try to
understand this situation and improve it.
He support the resolution, without the amendment, as a petition to begin
dialogue. Senator Eric Bailey, ASUO,
also spoke against the amendment saying it will bind the hands of those
involved until the planning is done.
Senator Phillips spoke in defense of his
amendment stating that it lets existing departments use current resources to
aid the resolution’s recommendations.
He wanted to make it clear that the proposed project should not be
completed by adding commitments to an institution that is already over
committed.
By
hand vote, the amendment to use no new resources in support of fulfilling the
resolution was defeated, with all but two senate members opposed to the
amendment. The
main resolution was again on the floor for discussion.
Senator Conley suggested changing the language so as not to appear to mandate a particular action. In response, President Earl said he did not believe the language needed to be changed, and that it was a matter of interpretation. He saw the current wording as not binding.
The questioned was called. Resolution
US00/01-8 to encourage the development of a human rights curricular and
research initiative passed, with all but two senators in favor of the
resolution.
With no other business, the final regular
meeting of the University Senate for 2000-2001 was adjourned at 5:01 p.m.
Gwen Steigelman
Secretary