Minutes of the University Senate May 11, 2005

 

 

Present: C. Cherry, D. Eisert, A. Emami, S. Eyster, L. Feldman, L. Freinkel, S. Gary, S. Haynes, L. Huaxin, J. Hurwit, P. Keyes, C. Lachman, L. Lindstrom, W. A. Marcus, A. Mathas, J. McCole, A. McLucas, C. McNelly, K. McPherson, L. Moses, L. Nelson, M. Pangburn, G. Psaki, M. Raymer, L. Robare, G. Sayre, E. Scott, A. Shaw-Phillips, K. Sheehan, E. Singer, D. Sinha, S. Stoll, J. Wagenknecht, L. Wellman, R. Yang

 

Excused: P. Gilkey, P. Scher, S. Simmons, P. Swangard,

 

Absent: E. Chan, G. Epps, N. Hudson, J. Jablonski, K. Kennedy, S. Maier, S. Wells,

 

 

CALL TO ORDER

 

Senate President W. Andrew Marcus called the regular meeting of the University Senate to order at 3:05 p.m. in 282 Lillis. President Marcus reminded the senate members of the organizational senate meeting on May 25^th for the 2005-06 senate members. He added that retiring Vice President for Administration Dan Williams will be honored during the meeting in addition to the Westling Award presentation.

 

APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES

 

Minutes from the April 13, 2005 meeting were approved as distributed.

 

New Business

 

Motion to Confer Degrees for 2004-05. Amalia Gladhart, chair of the Academic Requirements Committee, read the motion to confer degrees:

 

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 2004-2005 and Summer Session 2005, the degree for which they have completed all requirements.

 

The motion passed unanimously without debate.

 

Recommendations for 2005-06 university committee appointments. Senate Vice President Peter Keyes, chair of the Committee on Committees, asked that the senate approve the list of recommended committee appointments for 2005-06 to be forwarded to President Frohnmayer for final approval and appointment. With no additions or corrections, the list of recommended appointments was approved.

 

Election of new Committee on Committees members. Senator Michael Raymer, chair of the Senate Nominating Committee presented a slate of five new members to serve on the Committee on Committees replacing members whose term had expired. The senate voted unanimously in electing the new committee members for a two-yesr term: Margie Paris, Deb Carver, David Frank, William Ayers, and Laura Vandenburgh.

 

Nomination of senate vice president for 2005-06. The floor was opened for nominations for senate vice president for 2005-06. Nominations may be received any time prior to the senate’s vote which takes place at the May 25^th organizational meeting. Senator Jeanne Wagenknecht, business school, was put forth as a candidate.

 

Motion US04/05-6 regarding modification of the Y grade. Shelly Kerr, chair of the Scholastic Review Committee (SRC), brought the following motion to the floor on behalf of her committee:

Moved that,

Requests for any grade changes involving the “Y” mark must include a letter of explanation to the University Registrar who approves, denies, or determines alternative appropriate action for the request.

 

Ms. Kerr explained that the SRC noticed a growing number of “Y” grades appearing on transcripts of students who were petitioning and appealing grades for a variety of reasons. A discussion of the history, purpose, and implementation of the Y grade revealed that the University of Oregon faculty approved a grading scheme that eliminated the grades of D and F and in 1970 substituted the mark of Y, meaning no basis for grade. Since that time, the D and F grades have been reinstated, but the Y grade remained.  Over time, the Y has been used to indicate that the student registered incorrectly and did not attend class, thus there was no basis for evaluation.  The UO is one of the few campuses in the country that use this mark, so there is not a ready understanding of the mark’s meaning by transcript readers.  In an effort to alleviate the confusion, a proposal was first made to eliminate the Y grade and institute a more commonly found mark of NC, meaning “no credit.”  Both the Undergraduate Council and Graduate Council discussed the proposed elimination of the Y grade and new NC mark. The Graduate Council was in favor of eliminating the Y mark, but the Undergraduate Council felt use of NC had too negative a connotation on a transcript.  The Undergraduate Council therefore recommended retaining the Y mark, but requiring that any subsequent changes to the Y grade go through the Registrar for review and approval.  An example of an approved request would involve processing a retroactive drop/add petition, switching the student to the correct class section, and subsequent submission of an earned grade. 

 

Both councils were in agreement that the Y mark, if used, should only mean that there is no basis for a grade. Any change to the Y mark after grades have been recorded should be unusual and/or rare, which is not always current practice. In addition, both councils felt that it would be appropriate for an instructor to change the Y to a letter grade at a later time, but that such a change needed to be reviewed and approved by the Registrar. Thus the intent of the motion on the floor is to make certain the Y grade is used appropriately.

 

During a question and answer period, Registrar Herb Chereck clarified that faculty are permitted to award a grade of Y with no explanation; the motion only concerns changes to the Y grade after the grades have been recorded. Mr. Chereck continued by giving an example of a misuse of a Y grade when it was later changed to a C, B, or A grade because the faculty member agreed to let the student to attend the class another term and earn a grade. In such a case, the student would need to register for the class and pay for it. Senator Anne McLucas, music, asked about the difference between the Y and “I” (incomplete) grades, to which Mr. Chereck stated that the Y mark should be given only when there is no basis for a grade, whereas the I grade is a negotiated process between the faculty and student for work not completed. When an I is assigned there is a negotiated contract to complete work for the class in a timely manner. Ms. Kerr pointed out the Graduate Council was in favor of eliminating the Y mark, but the Undergraduate Council wanted to keep it because faculty with very large classes may be reluctant to give an F grade in case they had made a mistake. Senator Lise Nelson, geography, commented that if a student does not show up for class, the student should be given an F and then, if there were extenuating circumstances, the student could petition the Registrar’s office.

 

With discussion coming to a close, Motion US04/05-6 requiring the registrar’s review when changing the Y grade was put to a vote and passed by voice vote.

 

Notice of motion to allow emeriti faculty to participate in senate meetings. Senate President Marcus indicated he had received notice to bring a motion before the senate fall term that would permit emeriti faculty members to participate in senate meetings. Currently, emeriti faculty are not members of the University Assembly or the University Senate. The intent of the motion is to enable emeriti faculty to participate in university governance.

 

STANDING AND ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE REPORTS

 

Spring 2005 Preliminary Curriculum Report. Paul Engelking, chair of the Committee on Courses, began his report by pointing out a change in policy regarding dropping courses not taught for the past three years. Previously, the list of dropped courses would appear in the Fall Curriculum Report, but from now on would appear in the Spring Curriculum Report. The change in policy enables a discussion with departments and faculty regarding dropped courses during spring term rather than waiting through the summer. Notice of the new policy appears on page 1 of the Spring 2005 Curriculum Report.

 

Mr. Engelking continued his report by outlining corrections or additions to the report. Added to Other Curricular Matters on page 11 was information that the Oregon University System has approved a Master of Arts (M.A.) or Master of Science (M.S.) program in Conflict and Dispute Resolution, School of Law, effective summer term 2005. In addition, on page 3 the course description for COLT 101 Introduction to Comparative Literature has been changed to “Introduction to the Comparative Study of Literature”, world literature, emphasis on literary genre, historical period

 

During a question and answer session Senator Mike Raymer, physics, asked if any departments objected to the change in dropped course listing policy. Mr. Engelking replied that he had a letter of concern from someone in the history department. Mr. Engelking continued that the Committee on Courses requires that to retain a course, the committee must know when the course will be taught within the current or next academic year, which term it will be taught, and who will be teaching the course. Even in the event that a course is dropped erroneously, it can be reinstated easily through an administrative action by contacting the Registrar’s office within three years of the dropped course listing. Mr. Engelking emphasized that the committee has no interest in rushing the course dropping process; rather, their intention is to eliminate from the catalog those courses no longer being offered and taught in order to provide students with accurate information when scheduling. With no further discussion, the motion to accept the Spring 2005 Curriculum Report with noted changes passed unanimously. (Full text of the report may be seen at http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~uosenate/dirsen045/S05CurRptFin.htm)

 

Presentation of draft Student Conduct Code and formation of the Senate Ad Hoc Senate Committee on the Student Conduct Code (SCC). Mr. William Daley, chair of the SCC, reported the committee’s work to revise the SCC, indicating a draft of the revisions will be vetted during the coming academic year. He noted the suggested revisions are the culmination of years of works and are an attempt to update the code from an educational perspective. (The current SCC, modeled after the criminal justice system, is very legalistic and somewhat adversarial.) Mr. Daley said the new code is written in plain language and is geared toward fact finding, having people accepting responsibility for their actions, having an educational consequence. The suggested revisions are consistent with national best practices regarding student conduct codes.

 

President Marcus thanked Mr. Daley and other SCC members for their hard work and announced the formation of a senate ad hoc Committee on the Student Conduct Code chaired by Senator Lisa Frienkel, English. This committee will be responsible for editing and preparing the new student conduct code for senate review after it has been reviewed by the General Counsel for compliance with current law. President Marcus indicated there would be opportunity for public review and comment with the goal for the senate to act on the code’s revision by the end of fall term.

 

Report from the Non-Tenure Track Instructional Faculty Committee (NTTIF). Kassia Dellabough, committee chair, reported that the committee’s task this year was to move forward the implementation of policies recommended the previous year. Recommendations were distilled into basic principles. Academic Affairs, with leadership from Vice Provost Russ Tomlin, is working in partnership with the NTTIF to begin the implementation procedure. Ms. Dellabough noted that several schools and colleges have developed their own internal groups to address issues germane to non-tenure related instructional faculty; she felt confident there would be improvements in the working environment of these faculty members. Ms. Dellabough indicated the committee is working to improve communications among NTTIF and is developing “best practices” guidelines and models for schools and colleges to implement. She added that next year the committees focus will be on continuing to work with Academic Affairs and increasing communication across campus, along with continuing the dialogue regarding salary and compensation issues.

 

Vice Provost Tomlin commented that during the academic deans’ retreat last summer they were made aware that the NTTIF issues needed to be addressed. The implementation working group includes deans, NTTIF, and tenure related faculty who have identified policies that are straightforward and relatively easy to implement right away, as well as those that are more difficult to implement. Mr. Tomlin continued saying that the working group will be creating an information site on the Academic Affairs website to enhance communications about NTTIF issues. In addition, the group will create paths to regularize appointment and evaluation procedures and review policy about promotion. Lastly, he noted that they are making changes to provide a more effective orientation for new NTTIF who may not have started working fall term during the regular new faculty orientation. And, part of the Department Heads Retreat program at the start of fall term will address upgrading procedures regarding appointments and working conditions for NTTIF.

 

During a question and answer session, Ms. Dellabough commented that because NTTIF was such a diverse employee group, the initial efforts were focused on non tenure related instructional faculty members with at least a .50 FTE appointment who had worked at the UO for 3 years or more. Over time, policies relating to this sub group will better address appointments of faculty who teach for shorter time periods, such as one term. When asked how the efforts of the working group interfaced with policies already established in schools and colleges, Mr. Tomlin indicated there was work toward developing a template of baseline policies on which the various schools and colleges could build policies and procedures that best fit their own situation.

 

 

Report from the Senate Budget Committee. Steve Hsu, chair of the Senate Budget Committee (SBC) reported on the year’s data for average faculty salaries and compensation, stating that the UO’s numbers are bad overall and have gotten slightly worse during the past year because of the salary freeze. He noted that the picture was slightly better when looking at total compensation (salary plus benefits) when compared to salary only, however, there are caveats with these data. Mr. Hsu said in general we are not compensated nearly as well as at other peer institutions. UO salaries as a percentage of peer institutions were 77.3% for full professors, 80.3% for associate professors, 85.6% for assistant professors, and 80.0% for instructors. When total compensation across all ranks is compared with peer comparators, the UO is at 86.2%. He reminded everyone that the White Paper on salaries had 95% parity with comparators as its goal. In year 5 of the plan, the average salary was $66,600 compared with $66,200 the previous year, mostly as a result of small increases due to promotions. The UO total compensation, salary plus benefits, decreased by 1.9%.

 

Mr. Hsu pointed out that an important consideration is in how one values the benefits component for faculty compensation; the value of the benefits component needs to stay equal to the dollar expenditure of our institution to purchase those benefits. Whether that accurately represents the value provided by those benefits for individual faculty members raises real questions. For example, in 2000-01 the cost to the UO for faculty benefits ranged from about 28 to 32% of salary for the three professor ranks. Roughly speaking, the UO is paying 30% of salary to purchase PERS and PEBB, and so on. Those expenses were about 6% higher than our comparators, so in the long-term when comparing compensation for UO faculty salary with the salary of faculty at other institutions we are compensated about 6% more than the salary figure represents. Mr. Hsu continued by saying in 2004-05 the benefits purchase costs for the UO ranged from 32 to 37% of salary; it went up significantly and is now roughly10% higher than our comparators. Consequently, the UO spends 10% more on average for our benefits that the average of our comparators. If the relative increase in the cost of benefits is due to some problems with PERS and is not going to be reflected in payouts in the future that would benefits faculty, then perhaps it is questionable to count that in our total compensation. This is a very important caveat in determining whether we made forward progress or regressed regarding the White Paper goal for the last 5 years. Mr. Hsu said if you take the pessimistic view the best comparative measure would probably be salary plus some normalized benefits value that lies somewhere between the figures of our reported given salaries and figures for compensation. Salary compression stayed relatively the same because of the salary freeze; it was slightly worse because professors were hired at higher salaries.

 

Regarding instructors salaries, accurate compensation data both for tenure related and non-tenured related instructors are not currently available for all our comparator institutions. Using data from several but not all our comparators, UO instructors are compensated at 91.7% of comparator levels (using data available from Michigan, Virginia, Colorado, and Washington). That is comparable to relative compensation of assistant professors and is superior to that of associate professors here at the UO. If salary alone is used as a comparator, the ratio to instructor’s salaries is about 80%, and that is comparable to ratios from comparator institutions. Mr. Hsu indicated that the SBC believes that not only are the senior faculty underpaid, it is getting difficult to hire new assistant professors at the current levels. Although deans and the provost may respond that funds are available to offer new assistant professors salaries at AAU average levels, many department heads are justifiably unwilling to distort their department salary structure by paying beginning assistant professors more than associate professors. Further, prospective faculty may well look forward and understand the difficult salary future that awaits them.

 

In short, the salary problem has to be addressed in all ranks in order to maintain morale and competitiveness. Mr. Hsu indicated that a rough estimate of the cost of improving the currently salary situation and increasing average total faculty compensation of $10,000 per year would bring us closer to our goal of 95% parity. Assuming there are 600 total UO faculty members, this would require an additional $6 million per year. A combination of funds from increased state support and endowment income, and possibly reallocation of resources from other programs, could be used to cover this cost. As an example, an endowment of $150 million would provide the necessary income, based on the assumption of a 4% investment return after inflation. Mr. Hsu stated that faculty members should ask whether resources from the ongoing comprehensive campaign, which has already raised half of the targeted $600 million, will be used to improve the salary situation. He closed his remarks by saying the high quality of our research and teaching programs is jeopardized by the dramatic salary gap between the UO and the comparator institutions. Our identity as a leading research institution is at stake; improving faculty salaries and restoring UO competitiveness is the single and highest priority of our institution.

 

During a question and answer session Senator Raymer asked how the list of comparators was chosen and how the UO compares with national rankings. Mr. Hsu commented that when developing a list of comparators one usually wants to aim high, so they select from top universities. In further discussion, Mr. Hsu suggested that if the UO chooses not to use endowment monies to better fund faculty salaries, it is hollow to say that salaries are a top priority. Provost Moseley interrupted to say that he would love it if donors were able to give endowment funds for faculty salaries. The UO has never used endowment funds for faculty salaries and has never heard of any other institutions that have done this, either. The endowment funds that the UO has raised are all designated for specific purposes. It is a misstatement to say that the administration could make a decision to direct $150 million of endowment funds or even $10 million to faculty salaries. He noted, too, that the UO has raised over $50 million towards endowed professorships that goes into faculty salaries and helps with some of the competitive salary issues. In fact, there is no endowment at the UO that can simply be converted to faculty salaries. Rather, this administration has quadrupled in number and size the amount of money available to endow chairs. The provost continued that he absolutely places faculty salaries as a top priority and is very concerned about the warnings that Mr. Hsu gave based on these data.

 

Senator Gina Psaki, romance languages, remarked that no one in her department makes the average faculty wage that is in the report. She also had concerns about the comparator schools and felt they may not be equal to the UO, thus skewing the results of the report. Provost Moseley replied that as you break down data into smaller and smaller units you can get into problems of statistics of small numbers. He stated that he looks at those data on a regular basis, literally down to the departmental level, and has larger groups of comparators by schools, colleges, and rank. The provost suggested he could involve the SBC in looking at the more detailed data and report back to the Senate. There are substantial differences among disciplines and those disciplines are driven by international markets. He noted that some comparators have medical schools, for example, and all comparators are AAU institutions.

 

 

Report on the diversity working group recommendation. A draft of the university’s 5-year Diversity Plan that was circulated prior to the senate meeting generated a number of negative responses from individual faculty members as well as a member of the diversity Advisory Council. Complaints were that not all committee and council members had reviewed the draft before it was released, thus it was not a product of the committee and council members who were named on the title page of the draft plan. Other complaints voiced referred to terms within the plan (such as “cultural competency”) that were not appropriately nor adequately defined, especially as linked to decisions regarding promotion and tenure. Provost Moseley then commented that the Deans’ Council had an extensive discussion with Vice Provost for Institutional Equity and Diversity Greg Vincent about the existing draft of the Diversity Plan. The consensus of the deans was that the university has had a long term commitment to develop a diversity plan; that it is very important to move forward to finalize and institute a diversity plan; that the six basic points of the plan have been discussed and redefined as goals for the diversity plan; and that some of the detailed proposals for accomplishing the six goals clearly require further discussion, modification, and/or approval by appropriate university communities and appropriate administrative bodies. To suggestions that faculty governance bodies had been circumvented or that faculty listed in the plan did not participate in or sign off on the plan, Provost Moseley stated that the draft plan did include work by most of the people listed, and that all people listed were invited to work and comment on the draft. Further, the provost said the intention was to make it clear that we need the diversity plan; areas that need further discussion are areas that the university has deemed as important, but clearly there is need for more. He added that there was never any intention in this draft plan to circumvent the usual university approval process within the UO governance system.

 

Vice Provost Vincent began his report by addressing the issue of faculty participation in the drafting and reviewing of the plan. He noted the Diversity Working Group is made up of faculty, students, officers of administration, and staff who were asked and accepted the assignment to work on and develop a set of recommendations that is now the draft Diversity Action Plan. In addition, deans, directors, and vice presidents were asked to nominate faculty, officers of administration, students and staff from all over campus. A listserv of participants was created and materials were sent out to them. The Diversity Advisory Council had monthly meetings and the draft plan was presented at the March 31^st meeting, at which a majority of council members were present. Vice Provost Vincent said that members on the emailing list had numerous opportunities to review and to comment on the draft plan.

 

President Marcus asked Vice Provost Vincent to discuss the process of moving forward with the draft. Mr. Vincent commented that he appreciated that the senate was creating an ad hoc committee with the intention of vetting the plan to the entire campus community for comment and input. He anticipated that the draft would be subject to major revisions and input from the campus community.

 

During a question and answer session several senators raised the issue of using cultural competency in tenure and promotion/performance appraisal, saying release of the draft was premature, and that further discussion on this and other points is needed. Vice Provost Vincent agreed that the issue needs additional attention. President Marcus indicated that to receive faculty and campus community input, he was appointing an ad hoc senate Committee on Diversity consisting of past senate presidents Bowditch, Earl, Hurwitz, Tedards, and Tublitz along with current senate Vice President Keyes, with perhaps some others to be named later. The committee would work over the summer and through next academic year and is charged to be responsible for: (1) advising the Vice Provost for Institutional Equity and Diversity on the development of diversity action programs at the University of Oregon; (2) insuring that the University Senate and its committees are included in the development of diversity action plans; (3) coordinating activities among university committees and administrative working groups involved in diversity activities; and (4) recommending to the senate appropriate processes for continued senate involvement in developing and sustaining diversity programs on campus.  Recommended actions may include establishing a permanent University Committee on Diversity. In addition, the ad hoc committee will report to the senate in the form of a written report submitted by the chair to the secretary of the senate no later than the final University Senate meeting in May 2006. The committee may make additional written or oral reports to the senate as appropriate. (For full text and charge, see http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~uosenate/dirsen045/SenAdHocComDivCharge17May05.htm).

 

 

ADJOURNMENT

 

With no other business at hand, President Marcus adjourned the meeting at 5:00 p.m.

 

 

Gwen Steigelman

Secretary of the Faculty