Senator Gilkey noted that he will attend the May meeting of the State Board and will give a summary of the meeting to the IFS. He proposed inviting institution provosts and other administrators to a meeting to discuss details of the general education transfer certificate. The certificate proposal would then be taken back to campus curricular bodies for discussion and a vote. Senator Gilkey encouraged senate members to contact their IFS representatives (Senators Nathan Tublitz and Jim Earl) in support of this certificate. Board member Schutte has been supportive of this initiative and has encouraged it to be faculty driven.
IFS Representative and Senator Jim Earl, English, said he was at a number of meetings in which the new general education transfer certificate was discussed, and commented that the certificate has the potential to be a powerful impetus for curricular reform. He reiterated the importance of the initiative being a faculty driven process, and said this will assist in what is proving to be a major top-down reform of the higher education system.
The report provides 12 proposals in response to the committee's three major charges, and is, in part, a product of small faculty and student group meetings in which concerns, ideas, and discussions were held regarding athletics and academics. The overarching goal of the Task Force is to increase mutuality between athletics and academics. A summary of Task Force proposals is as follows:
President Bowditch thanked the task force for their report and opened the floor to questions. A question was posed regarding the ethical considerations on testing sports related prototypes on players without the knowledge of the campus community. The Task Force replied while this specific issue was not addressed.
Non-Tenure Track Instructional Faculty (NTTIF) Committee. Committee Co-Chairman Greg McLauchlan, sociology, provided a summary of the NTTIF's actions over the past year. He noted that NTTIF represent approximately half of the university instructional faculty and teach about 40% of undergraduate student credit hours. This former ad hoc, and now standing committee was created adjacent to a growing national discussion and debate regarding NTTIF. Issues being addressed include NTTIF roles, status, reforms, job security, compensation, benefits, professional development opportunities, and the trend toward a 2- tier faculty system, where tenure-related faculty are responsible for research and graduate instruction, and NTTIF responsible for undergraduate instruction.
Over the past several years the committee compiled an archive of reference information on this topic and has interviewed department heads and administrative assistants to determine current policies. Relative few of the departments contacted had written policies for NTTIF. In addition, an NTTIF survey was conducted in spring 2003 which provided UO specific information encompassing many areas of NTTIF concerns. Currently, the committee has drafted a report with 20 specific proposals for faculty review and discussion. Mr. McLauchlan encouraged senators to review the report in preparation for a Town Hall Meeting on the topic of NTTIF to be held Thursday, May 20th, 2004 from 3:30 : 5:00 pm in 150 Columbia. The committee will work to further refine these proposals with feedback from faculty, and plans to present recommendations to the senate beginning next fall term. (See http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~uosenate/dircom/NTTIF-report15May04.html for full text of the draft report.).
Senate Budget Committee (SBC). SBC member Larry Dann, finance, stood in for committee chair Lynn Kahle for this report. Mr. Dann explained the SBC was charged with the primary responsibility of addressing the long-standing compensation issues at the UO in comparison with peer institutions. The SBC White Paper of 2000 set forth a faculty compensation goal of 95% parity with peer institutions and plans for achieving the goal over 5-7 years. The initial implementation plan called for a yearly average compensation increase of 2.5% over the cost of living to reach this goal. Of course the current legislatively mandated salary freeze has impaired the university's ability to make progress on this issue.
Mr. Dann explained that this year's report is Year 4 since the White Paper was adopted. Over the past year, despite the salary freeze in place, there has been slight progress. In 2003, the overall average comparative compensation was 87.9%, most recently it is 88.1%. This increase primarily reflects the effects of salary increases for promotions, new hires, changes in duties or responsibilities, and the increases in the benefits cost portion of total compensation. The data show a 1.5% salary increase, presumably due to new hires and rank promotions. The degree of parity among ranks remains about the same.
Data for faculty at the rank of instructor is relatively crude because the definition of instructor is not well defined across the group of peer comparator institutionas. The SBC has begun working with a subcommittee of the NTTIF to start addressing such concerns. Mr. Dann concluded his report by commenting that notwithstanding the legislative salary freeze, if the state is to make any progress toward the governor's stated goals for higher education, the state must reinvest in its basic resource : the faculty. (See http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~uosenate/dirsen034/dirSBC034/SBC03-4Report.html ).
During a brief discussion period Senator Gilkey asked if the salary increase received in 2003 was reflected in the data presented. Mr. Dann replied the data was extracted from national data available in March 2003, some of which was tabulated prior to that time. Senator Christine Sundt, AAA library, asked if the term "faculty" refers to administrative faculty or only instructional faculty, to which Mr. Dann replied that only instructional faculty were included in the data of this report.
Senator Daniel Pope, history, commented that the data for continuing faculty in 2003-04 show an increase in a range higher than actually received. He asked how reliable the data are, wondering how advances could have been made when benefits such as PERS have been reduced significantly. Mr. Dann said he could not answer that question with specific data, but conjectured that it may be, in part, due to the way the benefits package is computed and that the UO covered the increased costs of benefits (i.e., health insurance, etc.) The Office of Resource Management provides assistance with such computations, and suggested that SBC chair Kahle be contacted for a more in-depth answer.
Preliminary Spring 2004 Curriculum Report. Committee on Courses Chairman Paul Engelking, chemistry, noted the following changes to the preliminary curriculum report that was circulated:
Senator Malcolm Wilson, classics, asked for clarification: if a graduate student was completing a 4 credit course, would the student be expected to do 20% more work per credit in the course. Mr. Engelking responded it should not say per credit, but rather per class. Senator Pope stated that he disagreed with the concept of a Student Engagement Inventory and could not support any motion (to accept the curriculum report) that puts forth a measurement of student effort. Mr. Engelking agreed that there is wide disparity in the amount of time students typically would be required to put into a class to perform at the same level. However, the numbers offered in the engagement inventory are only planning estimates for design of the courses.
Senator Anne McLucas, music, asked how the time was calculated in terms of student load; are 48 hours of effort per week required for a 16 credit hour course load? Mr. Engelking noted that the number of effort hours includes actual in-class time.
A motion to accept the Spring 2004 Curriculum Report with changes as noted was approved by voice vote. (Final version of the Spring 2004 Curriculum report may be viewed at http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~uosenate/dirsen034/CurRptS04F.html.)
With no discussion or comments forthcoming, the motion to confer degrees for 2003 - 04 and Summer Session 2004 was put to a voice vote and passed unanimously.
Recommendations for 2004-2005 Committee Appointments. Senate Vice President W. Andrew Marcus, who is also chair of the Committee on Committees, presented a list of people who have agreed to serve on the various appointed university standing committees. The committee followed past practice by attempting to honor responses to the committee cards circulated earlier in the year and requests for specific members made by committee chairs. A conscious attempt was made to be aware of the services demands of various committees, especially for newer faculty members and those already involved in service activities. (See http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~uosenate/dirsen045/com045.html for complete listing.) Acceptance of the committee appointment recommendations was moved, put to a voice vote, and passed unanimously.
Wayne Westling Award. Vice President Marcus continued that one charge of the Committee on Committees is to review nominations for the Wayne Westling Award and make a recommendation to the senate. This year, the committee unanimously endorsed Mr. Dennis Hyatt, director of the Law Library, as the 2004 recipient of the Westling award. Mr. Hyatt's record of service is remarkable for his extensive faculty mentoring, leadership on numerous ad hoc and formal committees in the Library and the Law School, and past service as senate parliamentarian. Multiple members of the academic community supported his nomination. (See http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~uosenate/WestlingAward.html for more information.) The recommendation of Mr. Hyatt as Westling Award recipient for 2004 met with unanimous approval from the members of the senate.
Motion US03/04-8 Amend Criteria for General Education Group Satisfying Course Status. Ms. Deborah Baumgold, chair of the Undergraduate Council, noted that the motion is the result of the council's two-year review of course proposals, which represents the only extensive review of group satisfying courses to date. As a result of the review, the Undergraduate Council developed a series of amendments and extensions to existing group satisfying legislation intended to supplement and extend current legislation. Text of the motion is as follows:
The Undergraduate Council moves to amend the existing criteria for status as a Group-satisfying course by adding the following guidelines: #1-3 to apply to all Group-satisfying courses, and guideline #4 to apply to 300-level, Group-satisfying courses, in particular.
Together with existing legislation, these guidelines are intended to be used in the review of new courses by existing curriculum committees, as well as to guide cyclical reviews of existing courses (as called for by US99/00-2). Departmental responsibilities as specified in numbers one and three will be monitored by the Registrar's office.
Ms. Baumgold quickly reviewed several key points about the proposed changes. First, regarding the call for posting of electronic course descriptions for all group-satisfying courses, she noted that examples have been provided to show how these descriptions would differ from the catalog copy. This recommendation results from student suggestions. Second, each syllabus should state the fundamental questions addressed by the course and indicate how the course meets the group criteria it satisfies. Third, each course should be offered in periods standard for regular terms, and not less than 3 weeks (this minimal number of weeks was chosen as a result of the council's desire to maintain the academic integrity of the group satisfying courses). She noted this last change may have a financial impact, although an estimate is not available at this time. Finally, 1999 senate legislation required 300-level courses to be of "greater depth and rigor". The course review reveled a need to better clarify this statement. Accordingly, a 300-level course should introduce students to a discipline, educate students in the way that knowledge is produced in a discipline, and encourage integration of perspectives and material. Students enrolled in a 300-level course are expected to have a background in university level courses.
President Bowditch asked for questions about the motion. Senator Frances Cogan, honors college, asked how advanced placement (AP) course work was handled in this proposal, to which Ms. Baumgold replied that AP courses were not addressed by the council specifically, but would be handled as usual with transfer credits. Senator Wilson, a former Undergraduate Council member, spoke in strong support of the motion. He further asked if the proposed recommendations would help address criticisms made of our current undergraduate curriculum.
Vice President Davis answered that the Undergraduate Council's review and recommendations stemmed from an accreditation review that criticized group satisfying courses and what was seen by the accreditation team as a smorgasbord approach to course offerings. She indicated that several of the motion's recommendations would assist in addressing the issues raised during the last accreditation review and would provide students with a better understanding of group-satisfying course.
Senator Pope asked if requiring substantial lower division work would mean formal prerequisites would be required for 300 level courses (see 4. d.). Ms. Baumgold replied that no prerequisites are being required as a result of this motion. Senator Pope commented that although he is sympathetic to the reasoning behind item 4.d., he has concerns regarding eliminating September experiences courses without a review of how successful these courses are. Ms. Baumgold said the September courses were not reviewed and the council was not targeting specific courses. Rather, to protect academic integrity, it seems the September experience could focus on something rather than group satisfying courses.
Associate Dean Priscilla Southwell, political science, stated that although she supports the majority of the motion, she disagrees with item 3 because there are courses during "zero week" that have the same number of contact hours as when they are offered during the academic year. She continued that the coursework is the same for these courses regardless of when they are offered, and thus she encouraged the removal of item 3. In response, Ms. Baumgold explained that prior to formulating the third item, the affected courses were reviewed. The council took the position that not all courses less than 3 weeks long would be less substantive than their longer running equivalents; nevertheless, the council felt that accepting courses shorter than a 3 week period as a group satisfying course may open the door for less substantive courses to be offered and counted as group satisfying.
Senator Nathan Tublitz, biology, agreed with Dean Southwell and noted that the larger issue is whether the criteria listed are to be treated as policies or guidelines. If they are policies, there is a large increase in work for faculty in order to meet these requirements. Ms. Baumgold replied that the criteria are intended as guides. It would be the primary responsibility of faculty to initiate and complete these tasks. She said that items 1 and 3 would be overseen by the registrar's office; she agreed that the motion's criteria would require more work, but the result would be an improved group-satisfying curriculum.
Senator McLucas suggested item 3 might be returned to the council for further discussion rather than excluded entirely. Mr. Engelking, to provide some context of student time commitment, pointed out that all group-satisfying courses are 4 credits. With the current course work standards, a 4-credit course taught in 2 weeks is equivalent to a 60-hour work week; a 4-credit course taught in 3 weeks is equivalent to a 40-hour work week. Senator Henry Alley, honors college, commented that it is appropriate to consider the time frame in which a course is taught, and that a 3-week course does not seem unreasonable.
Senator Gilkey then called for the question, which passed by voice vote. Motion US03/04-8 to amend the criteria for group satisfying course was put to a hand vote and passed (16 in favor; 13 opposed). Further, it was moved, at Vice President Davis' request, that Motion US03/04-8 not go into effect until Fall 2004 due to contractual obligations regarding Summer Session and the September Experience. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote.
Motion US03/04-11 Add Classified Staff to the Intercollegiate Athletics Committee : Andrew Marcus, Senate Vice President. Senate Vice President Marcus put the following motion on the floor for discussion:
Moved to amend the Revised Enabling Legislation for University Standing Committees (passed by the University Senate May 9, 2001) to include two (2) classified staff representatives on the Intercollegiate Athletics Committee.
The vice president noted that classified staff comprise 35% of the university community. He suggested that since the senate values shared governance, it is important to acknowledge the expertise that could be brought to this committee by classified staff, including issues related to scheduling, academic advising of students, and facilities management. He further added that members of the Intercollegiate Athletics Committee support the motion.
During the discussion period, a question was asked whether the two classified positions would be elected since the committee was a faculty elected committee, and if so, when and how the election would take pace. Vice President Marcus replied that the positions would be elected during the regular faculty elections in spring 2005 for academic year 2005-06, and using the regular election cycle thereafter.
With no further discussion, the motion was put to a voice vote and passed unanimously.
Motion US03/04-12 : Add Classified Staff to the Library Committee. As was done in the previous motion, Vice President Marcus put the following motion on the floor:
Moved to amend the Revised Enabling Legislation for University Standing Committees (passed by the University Senate May 9, 2001) to include one (1) classified staff representative on the University Library Committee.
The vice president explained that the Library Committee is involved in all functions of the library including collections, policies, issues related to technology, technology transfer, public safety, and hours of operation. He noted that classified staff input would be valuable to this committee because they have expertise in these areas. Further, the library staff supports the motion.
Again, the question was raised concerning the time frame for implementation and who would make the classified staff appointment to the committee. The vice president clarified that the Committee on Committees would make the classified staff appointment recommendation as part of their regular committee recommendation process culminating in spring 2005 for academic year 2005-06 appointments, using the same Committee on Committee procedures thereafter.
Senator Wilson asked the vice president for a more vigorous defense of adding classified staff involvement on the Library Committee, questioning what the classified staff member could bring to the committee that other members cannot. The vice president said the committee has 10 (instructional) faculty member appointments currently and several officers of administration. If a goal of the library is to have it run by the best practices possible, it is reasonable to request input from representatives that work directly with the operation of the library. Mr. Brad Shelton, mathematics, speaking in support commented that the library provides a service to campus and that the classified staff specialize in service. Senator Marjorie Woolacott, exercise and movement science, asked what happens in small departments if the classified staff office person is a Library Committee member and has to attend a meeting? Does the department close for that time period?
Senate Classified Staff Participant Carla McNelly, multicultural affairs, stated that there are various ways departments have chosen to address this issue. Often there are other staff members willing to relieve the classified staff person for the committee meeting. In some departments, administrators are able to support such service by taking over small duties such as answering the phones themselves for the limited time period. Regardless of how the department chooses to handle the absence, all committee service by classified staff members must be approved by their supervisor, which addresses this issue prior to attending any meetings.
With discussion concluded, Motion US03/03-12 to add one classified staff member to the Library Committee was put to a voice vote and passed unanimously.
Motion US03/04-10 Enable the Assembly to Convene with Full legislative Authority.
Noting the lateness of the hour, Senate President Bowditch asked the senators whether they would like to continue past the stated adjournment time and bring the motion to the floor, or postpone discussion of the motion until the first meeting of the next academic year. Senator Gilkey moved that the motion be postponed to the first regular meeting of the senate in the next academic year (October 13, 2004), and that it be the first (unfinished) business item on the agenda. Feeling that there was general agreement on the matter, the motion to delay action on motion US03/04-10 was brought to a voice vote and carried unanimously. (See http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~uosenate/dirsen034/US034-10.html for full text of the motion US03/04-10).
Gwen Steigelman Secretary
|Web page spun on 20 June 2004 by Peter B Gilkey 202 Deady Hall, Department of Mathematics at the University of Oregon, Eugene OR 97403-1222, U.S.A. Phone 1-541-346-4717 Email:firstname.lastname@example.org of Deady Spider Enterprises|