Minutes of the University Senate Meeting Wednesday October 10, 2007

Minutes of the University Senate Meeting October 10, 2007

Present: A. Adell, C.A. Bassett, C. Bengston, P. Boye, H. Briston, C. Cherry, ,L-S. Chou, A. Coles-Bjerre, R. Davies, D. Falk, P. Gilkey, A. Gladhart, N. Gulley, E. Herman, D. Hernandez, K. Kennedy, P. Lambert, D. Levin, P. Lu, B. Malle, A. Mathas, T. Minner, C. Moore, J. Newton, D. Olson, M. Pangburn, A. Papailiou, S. Paul, E. Peterson, N. Rajabzadeh, M. Redford, J. Rowell, G. Sayre, A. Schulz ,L. Stephen, A. Taylor. T. Toadvine, N. Tublitz, P. van Donkelaar, L. Vandenburgh

Excused: M. Chong*, P. Lu

Absent: C.A. Bassett, G. Berk, R. Bramhall, J, Hunter*, C. Martinez*, C. Parsons, F. Pyle, P. Rounds

CALL TO ORDER

The first regular meeting of the University Senate for the 2007-08 academic year was called to order by Senate President Gordon Sayre at 3:04 p.m. in 180 Prince Lucien Campbell. President Sayre welcomed everyone to the start of a new academic year, especially the new student members.

APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES

Senator Peter Gilkey, mathematics, moved approval of the minutes of the May 9^th regular senate meeting and the May 23^rd organizational meeting. The minutes were approved as distributed.

OPENING REMARKS

President Sayre remarked briefly about known issues that likely will come before the senate during the coming year, including: updating course evaluation questions and moving to an on-line evaluation completion system; the proposed new basketball arena; academic freedom and scholarly publishing; conflict of interest and commitment policy; implementation of the reorganized retirement plans (which is well underway); and, on a lighter note, the final placement of the Obelisk structure now located on the library quad. He noted the senate would like to sponsor a forum on the freedom of scholarly publishing issue later in the year, inviting experts to campus to speak on the topic, as well as faculty and administrators. The president commented, too, that Vice Provost Russ Tomlin has been working on new policies and disclosure forms for faculty to complete regarding conflict of interest and commitment issues that will be required of all faculty and are due to go on-line next May or June. President Sayre would like the senate to be a forum for explaining the importance of and ramifications of these policies. He noted there likely will be many other issues that arise during the year, and he expects a busy year.

STATE OF THE UNIVERSITY

Letter from President Frohnmayer. President Sayre read a brief letter sent to members of the senate from University President Frohnmayer, who expressed regret at not being able to attend the meeting. In the letter President Frohnmayer outlined several themes he intends to touch on in his conversations with the senate this year: the new arena project; other building and facilities planning issues (such as the east campus area, science buildings and a comprehensive housing plan); successes and unmet needs of the Campaign Oregon fundraising effort; the interface of operating the university year round while involving faculty on 9-month appointments; addressing budget needs and funding priorities of the OUS; the opening of a UO Portland location, the Olympic Trials in the summer, and a build-back budget year (For full text of the President’s letter, please see http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~uosenate/dirsen078/FrohnmayerA10Oct07.pdf).

Remarks from Provost Brady on the Strategic Housing Plan. Before beginning her remarks, the provost drew attention to a handout of President Frohnmayer’s recent presentation to the State Board (see A Conversation with the State Board of Higher Education, http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~uosenate/dirsen078/Frohnmayer10Oct07.pdf) in which the president presented, among other points, a stark per student funding contrast of the University of Oregon when compared with other peer universities, with other AAU institutions, and with other OUS institutions. In particular, the president raised issues of inhibiting governance structures and our relation to the system. The provost encouraged the senate members to review the presentation.

Provost Brady then reviewed highlights of the strategic housing plan she presented to the State Board at the same recent meeting. The plan grew from a condition to selling the Westmoreland housing property last year. She noted the goals were to support and enhance our enrollment management strategy by providing adequate and flexible housing choices; further, the goal is to support and enhance our character as a residential university by encouraging full-time students to live on or close to campus, and by integrating academic programming and support services within the residential environment. The housing objectives are to house at least 25% of undergraduates, 85% of freshmen, 15% of sophomores, juniors, and seniors, and 11% of graduate students in a mix of unit types with accommodations for related student programming and services. Currently there are 3,501 beds in eight residence halls, and 447 apartment units/houses, very well maintained but outdated by current standards. All residential halls except the new Living Learning Centers are more than 40 years old. A housing analysis survey was conducted that involved 13 focus groups comparing 12 peer institutions; it yielded more than 3,100 on-line respondents. Looking at number of beds as a percentage of student enrollment, Oregon currently is at 19%, a relatively low percentage, with only the University of Arizona and University of Washington below the UO in the peer group.

The survey also tested four different types of housing units and relevant rents. It was clear that students off campus are not interested in traditional double or single room options; most (28%) preferred the four-single-bedroom suite option at a cost of $15,780 including the standard meal plan. The other options ranged from a traditional double bedroom at $12,020 to a two double bedroom suite at $14,340 per year, also including the meal plan. In addition to housing preferences, the survey looked at student learning and how to program residence halls to support learning. Based on survey results, the consultants concluded we provide an excellent range of learning communities, such as community conversations, Freshman Interest Groups (FIGs), and the Living Learning Center’s integration of academic and social spaces. However, the university needs similar academic and social spaces in other living halls. For example, the University of Michigan includes learning centers in each residence hall and provides an academic advisor and a peer advisor, tutors for 200 level courses (especially math and writing), as well as computer labs and work space. Indiana offers similar academic programming, in addition to a librarian four nights a week and Sunday evenings to help students with undergraduate research.

The provost noted that the university has four options to achieve the housing plan which focus primarily on renovation, and two of the options would require extensive replacement of existing housing. The housing task force recommended following the Accelerated Replacement Plan over a 10-year time frame at a cost of $40 to 60 million. It would be funded by unit rate increases of 3% annually, which is a standard increase. Over ten years, we would renovate approximately one third of the existing beds, replace approximately two thirds of housing stock, and construct approximately 1,900 new beds along with creating student learning spaces. Conservative estimates of from the survey indicated the university could market 2,400 new beds, so 1,900 new beds is very conservative estimate.

Next steps in this process are to begin sharing survey findings with a variety of campus constituencies and get feedback. The State Board supported the findings and moving forward on the housing plan, so the university will now simultaneously undertake review with financial management staff, make recommendations to the President, make list of issues, have a campus committee review, and hopefully start the first construction cycle at the end of this year. (See http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~uosenate/dirsen078/Brady-StrategicHousing.pdf for the full slide presentation.)

During a discussion period, Senator Nate Gulley, ASUO, asked if anything was being done to address the problem that rising housing costs continue to price many potential students out of school, especially when financial aid cannot be applied to housing. Provost Brady responded by acknowledging that was one reason for surveying outside campus students. There was an effort made to survey a diverse population of students, especially students on financial aid, and international students because many of these students lived in Westmoreland. The provost said they did not find much difference in the answers; they have not done the financial process yet, but the university will look at how the sale of Westmoreland can support construction and subsidize it to make it more affordable for students. Further, part of the housing plan includes financial aid to students. As a follow up question, Senator Gulley asked if there was a plan for a Westmoreland replacement. Provost Brady responded that there was not a Westmoreland equivalency plan, but that the focus was on looking at what our peers are doing, and providing attractive plans for those who would have lived in Westmoreland.

Senator Nathan Tublitz, biology, noted that the senate endorsed a report on university housing issues six years ago, and as a former senate president, he appreciated the university’s efforts on this issue. He asked Provost Brady to share the total cost of project and how it was going to be funded. The provost replied that the financial piece they favor most is $40-60 million for the first phase. There was not a substantial difference between renovation and replacement. The goal is to issue F bonds. The university wants to explore if there is an opportunity in using the private sector, not in terms of operating residence halls, but in building them to result in a slightly cheaper cost and to do the construction more quickly. Until the financial management staff has a chance to do their analysis, the provost could not say more.

Senator Bertram Malle, psychology, asked if the plan includes using new land to build new dorms or to replace existing dorms. The provost answered that this question has not yet been addressed – the focus of the survey was on the number of beds needed and types of housing units. The charge from the State Board was to think about what we want to accomplish and to create a broad plan. Senator Malle also had a follow up question, noting that we are borrowing money with bonds to finance the housing, and are also using bonds to finance the new basketball arena. He wondered if the provost saw a problem in asking people to finance university projects, especially when tax revenue is looking good. Provost Brady responded that she was concerned with going to the state for funding; if one compares our funding per FTE of students with other institutions, it is evident that we are funded less well. She said the gap is too large for the state, and is the reason why the president made a strong statement to the board about why we need to look at our relation to other institutions in the state system. Senator Gulley asked when the senate could expect a concrete plan. Provost Brady responded that the next phase would be after university financial management staff works up a budget, which would not take place until the winter term. President Sayre closed the discussion in order to move on to the provost’s next topic.

Remarks from Provost Brady on Equity and Diversity. Provost Brady provided a recent history of the University Diversity Plan during academic year 2006-07 which included development by departments of Strategic Action Plans (SAPs) based on the six content areas of the University Diversity Plan, and on feedback provided to the departments by the Office of Institutional Equity and Diversity (OIED) staff and the Diversity Advisory Committee (DAC). The provost and General Counsel Melinda Grier reviewed these plans over the summer. Next steps this year include implementation support through dissemination efforts, workshops, and individual consulting, with progress reporting in spring 2008. The provost noted that all plans but one are posted on the OIED web site (see http://vpdiversity.uoregon.edu/policies.html). Provost Brady commented that there are ongoing challenges in the process, including how to prioritize this agenda against other agendas, resource prioritization and seed funding, sustaining engagement on and off campus, and positioning of diversity relative to academic quality, among others. She indicated that she values action, and so the challenge is to move beyond vision and put words to action. (See http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~uosenate/dirsen078/Brady-Diversity.pdf).

The provost reported that the Underrepresented Minority Recruitment Plan (UMRP) was reviewed and plan provisions were clarified over the last academic year as part of the Diversity Plan process. Academic Deans, the General Counsel, the Faculty Advisory Counsel, OIED, and Academic Affairs all were consulted to address the major issues of consistency of plan utilization, transparency, and accountability. The UMRP parameters were noted as designed to assist departments in hiring diverse faculty selected for academic positions. Funds are provided to cultivate a positive academic environment for the new hire and the department.

Vice Provost Tomlin stated that the use of UMRP funds needs to be congruent with common start-up funding norms in the department; the funds are not to be used in making hiring decisions. He said that the process is now clearly articulated, starting with submission by the department of a detailed written plan for the use of the UMRP funds to the dean, followed by the dean’s review/revision, AAEO analysis on whether the appointment contributes to department diversity, and ensuing review and sign off by OIED, Academic Affairs, and the provost. Implementation occurs through Academic Affairs and a final report is submitted at the end of the funding cycle. The vice provost reported that six proposals were approved in 2006-07 with five proposals pending decisions this month. He commented that four colleges/schools have benefited, and includes support for individual research, travel support, investing in department diversity programs, and the ability to host supporting conferences.

Provost Brady then opened the floor for questions about the Diversity Plan update. Senator Lynn Stephen, anthropology, asked how long the UMRP process should take, keeping hiring practices and timelines in mind. Vice Provost Charles Martinez, OIED, replied that it should take two weeks to process the proposals and that there is motivation to keep things streamlined. If everything is in order, there is a quick turnaround. The “hiccups” occur as people learn the new funding request system and when incomplete plans are turned in. Vice Provost Tomlin echoed the notion that the process should take two weeks or less.

Senator Gulley asked if the university was going to commit funds for retention of faculty of color in ways other than those provided by the diversity plans and UMPR. Provost Brady responded that she has tried to be aggressive in addressing this issue and has delegated funds to Academic Affairs, Research, OIED, deans and department head to move independently and quickly when retention issues arise. The provost noted over the past six months a more aggressive team oriented approach between departments, schools, colleges and administrative offices has been utilized to solve issues and commit funds. Vice Provost Martinez added that successful retention stories do not usually bubble up to visibility the way high profile departures or threats of departure do. The administration has specifically talked with deans about retention; the successes are not as visible, but are out there. Vice Provost Tomlin commented that it is important to show our colleagues how they are valued and essential to the mission of the university, and that we are always looking for ways to build faculty relations. (See http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~uosenate/dirsen078/Brady-Diversity.pdf for the relevant slide presentation.)

Introduction of new Department of Public Safety administrative staff. Mr. Brian Smith, assistant vice president of finance and administration, introduced the new Director of Public Safety Kevin Williams, with whom Vice Provost Tomlin will work on the issue of workplace violence. Mr. Williams thanked the senate for his welcome and expressed an interest in returning to speak with the senate at a later date. He indicated that the focus of the public safety department will be service as well as security. Mr. Smith also introduced Mr. Andre LeDuc, the Oregon Natural Hazards Workgroup program director who is working in the area of emergency planning and preparedness. Although a new position, Mr. LeDuc is not new to this field or the university, as he is working with graduate students at the Community Service Center to update our emergency plan, and he led the team that wrote our first disaster plan.

Senator Gulley asked Mr. Williams to comment on the possibility that Public Safety officers might use tasers. Mr. Williams replied that taser use was only a discussion at this point, and that such a decision would be made in central administration. He invited Senator Gulley to meet with him to discuss the matter further.

REPORTS

Senate Budget Committee Sub-Committee on Arena Financing. SBC sub-committee member John Chalmers, finance, explained that the subcommittee was charged with looking at financing the new arena, and is meeting weekly. The committee is examining if the arena plan is feasible, how much it would cost, financing alternatives, revenue projection, and the capital budget philosophy, focusing on how to decide what to do first. He noted that the committee is in the process of gathering information for analysis, thus a detailed report is not available yet. The sub-committee is working with Athletics administration to do the analysis, which is still in process, and they have offered assistance to Athletics and central administration to identify issues and solutions. Mr. Chalmers stated that when the report is complete it will be made public and sent to the senate and the president; the committee’s recommendations will be advisory.

Senator Malle asked how the decision hierarchy around this issue worked. Professor Chalmers answered that the subcommittee has been assured that they will be listened to, that the report will be made public, and that they are in an advisory role. Senator Tublitz expressed that when the Autzen Stadium expansion was being considered, the senate made a similar report and put forth an endorsement. His hope is that the report either puts forth an endorsement or non-endorsement, and that it goes through the Senate Budget Committee and is reported to the senate as part of its documentary history. Mr. Chalmers replied that he would be happy to do whatever President Sayre asks.

ANNOUNCEMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE FLOOR

Senator Andrew Schultz, art history, brought the search for the new Director of the Jordan Schnitzer Museum of Art to the senators’ attention. He explained that he does not represent the senate as a member of the search committee, but would be happy to be a liaison. The search committee narrowed the search to over 20 candidates who meet the minimum qualifications and has requested further information on eight of the candidates. Senator Schultz will convey to the senate when campus visits take place and will advocate on the senate’s behalf, if needed. He said the committee was using a search firm to help with the challenges of this search, referring to the large the number of other institutions with whom we are competing for candidates, and the internal issue around the museum director reporting to the Vice President for Advancement rather than the Provost. Senator Schultz said he could answer questions after the meeting since the hour was growing late.

NEW BUSINESS

There were a series of notices given for upcoming motions. Senator Gilkey gave notice of a motion (for action at the November 28^th meeting) to update changes in standing committees, specifically related to those who have not been functioning, changed names, or want charges changed (see http://www.uoregon.edu/~uosenate/dirsen078/US078-3.html .

Notice of motion was given by Senator Malle to change the required Course Evaluation form required questions. The motion would adopt the recommendations of the final report the Joint Senate/Academic Affairs Committee on Course Evaluations. The idea is to move forward not with just technical implementation, but also to improve the content and process of the evaluation. Ten required questions are proposed, with great flexibility for optional questions for individual schools and units. (See http://www.uoregon.edu/~uosenate/dirsen078/US078-7.html)

Vice President Paul van Donkelaar gave notice of motion to include career non tenure track faculty representation in the University Senate., which would align with implementation of a new policy for career non-tenured related faculty (NTTF) members. Career NTTF are identified as employed at .50 FTE or greater for at least three years. Many schools and colleges already identify NTTF faculty members as members of the voting faculty for serving on the senate or university committee purposes. (See http://www.uoregon.edu/~uosenate/dirsen078/US078-5.html)

Mr. Frank Stahl, emeritus biology, gave notice of motion to enable convening meetings of the University Assembly with full legislative authority. Mr. Stahl notes that in the past quorum issues and the ability to meet with legislative authority have been problematic due to the large number of assembly members. The intent of the motion is to amend the charter and re-establish functionality of the University Assembly. (This motion is under revision for action at the November 28 meeting and will be posted shortly).

Mr. Sherwin Simmons, art history, gave notice of motion to return the reporting relationship to the Provost when the new director of the Jordon Schnitzer Museum of Art (JSMA) is hired. (See http://www.uoregon.edu/~uosenate/dirsen078/US078-6.html). Mr. Sherwin noted the motion grew from the concern of many faculty members, especially in the School of Architecture and Allied Arts, about the decision President Frohnmayer made at the end of the spring term to change the reporting relationship of the JSMA from the Provost to the Office to the Vice President for Advancement. Mr. Simmons commented that best practices for college/university art museum administration organizations recommend a reporting relationship with the academic leadership of the institution. He also suggests reading his letter to the senate (see http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~uosenate/dirsen078/Simonds9Sep07.pdf), and the recent Pappas Report (see http://uoma.uoregon.edu/pappasreport.html) for context as well as letters from search committee co-chair Mr. Jon Erlandson (see http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~uosenate/dirsen078/Erlandson15Sep07.pdf) and Mr. Andrew Schulz’s reply (See http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~uosenate/dirsen078/Schulz19Sep07.html).

Resolution US 07/08-1 regarding the Focus the Nation Global Warning Symposium. Mr. Matthew Dennis, history, moved the following resolution,

Whereas global warming poses a serious threat to people and natural systems across the planet,

And whereas public and private policy decisions about global warming this decade will have impacts lasting for generations,

And whereas the University of Oregon is a public educational institution “dedicated to the highest standards of academic inquiry, learning, and service,” which accepts “the challenge of an evolving social, political, and technological environment by welcoming and guiding change rather than reacting to it,” and is committed to preparing students “capable of participating effectively in a global society,”[1]

And whereas, to focus the state and the nation’s attention on the critical issue of global climate change, University of Oregon students and faculty with leadership and coordination provided by the University of Oregon’s Office of Sustainability, in conjunction with colleges, universities, and other educational institutions across the country, will organize a symposium about “Global Warming Solutions for America” on or around January 31, 2008, which will include diverse disciplinary perspectives,

Be it resolved that the University Senate endorses this symposium.

And be it further resolved that, on that day, faculty are strongly encouraged to participate with their students in scheduled programs on campus about climate change, or, as appropriate, to devote class time to discussion of the subject.

Mr. Dennis spoke to the need to focus the growing concern about global warming and to create a serious, sustained national discussion about clean energy solutions. He said that Focus the Nation is coordinating teams of faculty and students across the country to engage in a nationwide interdisciplinary discussion of global warming solutions for America. The culminating event is planned for January 31, 2008 in a symposia held simultaneously at more than a thousand venues in the United States. At the UO, the symposium is being organized by Mr. Steve Mital, environmental studies program, and who is the new UO director for sustainability. Mr. Dennis opined that the symposium will advance the university’s public service mission and is worthy of senate endorsement. He strongly encouraged a favorable vote.

The senate seemed to agree with Mr. Dennis as the question was called in short order and President Sayre put the resolution to a vote. Resolution US 07/08-1 endorsing the Focus the Nation Global Warming Symposium passed unanimously by voice vote. (See http://www.uoregon.edu/~uosenate/dirsen078/US078-1.html).

EXECUTIVE SESSION

The senate moved to Executive Session to consider nominations of honorary degree recipients. Minutes of Executive Sessions are not recorded.

ADJOURNMENT

The meeting was adjourned after the senate members emerged from Executive Session at 4:50 p.m.

Gwen Steigelman

Secretary