Action items emerging from Faculty Leadership Caucus

The overarching issue permeating throughout all Caucus sessions is the faculty's desire that campus decisions be driven by the pursuit of academic excellence. In this time of dwindling state support and an uncertain financial future, it is not surprising that fiscal considerations steer some programmatic and other University decisions. There was strong consensus at the Caucus that major decisions at the University must be primarily based on academic grounds. It was felt that the University needs to develop plans to not only maintain but improve upon its strong academic reputation, both in Oregon and nationally. The issue of striving towards academic excellence was a theme permeating all 4 action items emerging from the day-long Caucus. The four items listed here are equally important.

I. Faculty input into University Strategic Plan document

A. Faculty consultation. Because of the University's long-standing commitment to shared campus governance, the University's future direction plan needs to involve both consultation and the public endorsement by the faculty. We recommend that this process includes the:

1. Appointment of faculty representatives to help with the drafting
2. Review of various drafts by the Senate Budget Committee, the Senate Executive Committee, and the FAC
3. Presentation of the final draft to the University Senate for comments
4. Co-signing or co-endorsing of the final document by University and Senate Presidents

B. Specific concerns about current draft. Specific concerns about current draft were raised by Caucus participants after a brief perusal of draft obtained at the beginning of the Caucus

1. Greater emphasis on academic excellence
2. Ramifications of targeting "selected programs" for enhancement and potential conflict with notion of working comprehensively to improve majority of university programs.
3. Current measures of academic success may not adequately reflect academic values.
4. Lack of explicit statement about liberal arts as core of University

II. Fairness and Equity on Campus
This items covers many issues, all of which directly affect campus morale and in turn impinges on academic excellence. The first item on this list was deemed to be the highest priority; the remaining items have equal priorities.

A. Diversity

1. Several positive steps have already been taken:

a. A diversity consultant visited campus this summer and will return this fall
b. Creation of CODC, supported by funds from the Provost and ASUO.

2. Administration and faculty must continue to be proactive rather than wait for next crisis. Recommendations include urging:

a. Interested faculty, staff and students, including the obvious programs and faculty, staff and students of color, to be involved in the organization of the second visit by the diversity consultant
b. These same groups to be involved in the appointment of a senior administrator to oversee diversity issues on campus
c. The administration to commit to funding such a position appropriately, to ensure that we hire and retain a quality individual.

B. Non-tenure-track Instructional Faculty (NTTIF)

1. We encourage the timely completion of the ad hoc NTTIF Committee report, already scheduled to be presented to the Senate in Spring of this year.
2. Tie future pay increases for NTTIF to the policies and practices in place for tenure-related faculty. This proposal is part of the Senate Budget Committee's Fall 2001 report to the University Senate.

C. Classified staff

1. Less pressing due to settlement of recent contract negotiations
2. Strong support by Caucus participants to send message that the UO that recognizes the integral link between the working conditions and morale of classified staff and the success of the academic mission of the university. A statement of support for classified staff will be presented as a resolution at the October 2001 University Senate meeting.

D. Salary compression

1. Currently being addressed by Fall 2001 SBC report to University Senate par
2. SBC proposal to selectively target compression is one of two major proposals in SBC report (other is salary increases for NTTIF)

III. Faculty Involvement in Resource Allocation

Caucus participants identified this issue as essential for aligning university action with aspirations for academic excellence. Specific focus must be on interweaving the consequences of resource allocation into the context of academic values.

A. Centralization versus decentralization. It is important that academically-driven fiscal decisions reached by the central administration translate into appropriate action at lower decision- making levels (e.g., Deans & Dept Heads)
B. The market-driven financial allocation model. This model does not always match academic values. For example, the productivity allocation model, based on student credit hours, has resulted in difficulties for some interdisciplinary programs and has lead to the faculty notion that decisions focus more on profit than on academic values.
C. The structure of faculty incentives warrants revision. Incentives differ widely in from one campus unit to another. Service is not highly valued in general and in some units neither is teaching. The overall effort to harness resource allocation to academic goals will first require some research, probably best initiated by the Senate Budget Committee.

IV. The Meaning of "Public" for Public Institutions

Today One issue that generated the most discussion concerned what it means to be a public institution in an era of declining state support.

A. Faculty commitment to being a public institution means:

1. Servicing a broad-based student body
2. Serving the public
3. Providing public service

B. Effect of diminishing state support on our mission. Caucus participants unanimously agreed there is a need for a sustained, in-depth discussion of this issue by the faculty.

1. Should/will increased reliance on private donors, tuition and fees, and research funds diminish either the public service or the public education goals of the institution?
2. Is the model of a public corporation (such as OHSU) attractive? 320
3. What about changes in OUS that might give the university greater freedom ? how might these changes affect our institutional vision?

C. Examination of our relationships with various "publics"

1. Public sectors involved with University include:

a. The general public
b. The State Legislature
c. The alumni
d. Other public institutions
e. Other important sectors

2. Issues to be explored

a. Who are the "publics" we are accountable to as an institution? 40
b. Does our public service mission expand beyond Oregon ? nationally and internationally?
c. How well do we articulate the value of UO to these various publics?
d. What can we do to raise the public profile of the academic excellence and educational accomplishments of UO?
e. How can we broaden the public's sense of the importance of higher education and the liberal arts beyond their economic value?
f. How would Oregon and public education be better served by more cooperative (rather than competitive) inter-institutional relationships among public colleges and universities, and is it realistic to aim for that?
g. Are we doing enough public service as an institution? the right kinds of public service?
h. How can our public relations efforts be more effective? How can faculty be more engaged in meaningful public service and effective public relations?