The Senate was called to order by the UO Senate President at 15:05 to the March 12 meeting of the UO Senate

Minutes of the Meeting of the University Senate March 12, 2008

Present: P. Boye, H. Briston, C. Cherry, M. Chong*, R. Davies, P. Gilkey, A. Gladhart, N. Gulley, E. Herman, D. Levin, P. Lu, B. Malle, , A. Mathas, L. Middlebrook, T. Minner, C. Moore, J. Newton, D. Olson, M. Pangburn, A. Papailiou, , S. Paul, E. Peterson, N. Rajabzadeh, M. Redford, J. Rowell, G. Sayre, L. Stephen, N. Tublitz, P. van Donkelaar. *denotes non-voting participant

Excused: R. Bramhall, L-S. Chou, A. Coles-Bjerre, D. Falk, P. Lambert, C. Martinez*, F. Tepfer, L. Vandenburgh

Absent: C.A. Bassett, C. Bengston, G. Berk, D. Hernandez, J, Hunter*, R. Illig, C. Parsons, F. Pyle, P. Rounds, A. Schulz, A. Taylor, T. Toadvine

CALL TO ORDER

The regular meeting of the University Senate was called to order by the Senate President Gordon Sayre at 3:05 p.m. in room 150 Columbia.

APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES

Minutes of the February 13, 2008 meeting were approved as distributed. A question arose regarding circulating of the minutes (via paper copies), to which the secretary replied that minutes are posted on the senate page (and have not been circulated in paper copy for several years).

STATE OF THE UNIVERSITY

Remarks from Vice President for Administration and Finance Frances Dyke. Vice President Dyke spoke in place of President Frohnmayer, who was out of town on university business. Vice President Dyke began her remarks by reminding everyone of the honoring ceremony on April 6^th to present honorary degrees to 19 Japanese American students whose studies at the university were interrupted during World War II when they were ordered by the federal government to go into internment camps. Six of the 19 former students are anticipated to attend the ceremony to be held in Gerlinger Hall, as well as family members of those who could not attend. The awarding of the degrees on OUS campuses was permitted by Oregon HB2823.

Ms. Dyke spoke next regarding Spring and Fall 2008 enrollments, saying that spring enrollment increases are slightly over expectations, and the outlook for fall is positive. She noted that freshman applications are up 40% and we expect to enroll between 3,500 and 3,750 students, an increase of between 250 and 400 freshman students. Overall undergraduate headcount increases approximation 200 students. Nationally, high school graduates peak in 2008-9 and then decline until 2013.

Ms. Dyke next spoke about Pathway Oregon, a new scholarship program providing both full financial support and advising. Target group are those students needing the most financial assistance and who likely are the first generation in their family to attend college. A combination of federal, state (under the shared responsibility model), and university funds, both public and private, will support the program. The financial aid office has identified over 700 individuals who would be eligible, with 400 likely to attend the UO. President Frohnmayer is sending letters to eligible students inviting them to apply for the program, and follow-up letters and phone calls are planned (see http://pathwayoregon.uoregon.edu).

The vice president continued her remarks commenting about the economic situation in the state, which is not looking good. The current economic downturn has resulted in the governor withholding some of the biennial compensation package for state agencies (approximately $7 million for the UO, which was meant to cover salary and health benefit increases) and it is unlikely any will be released this year. It is unknown now whether all or some will be released next year. The administration is discussing options to deal with the shortfall, but the information was just received, so the administration will have further consultations when they have had a chance to digest the information.

Ms. Dyke spoke next about recent events that resulted in the city approaching the university regarding McKenzie Willamette Hospital’s desire to build a new hospital on the Riverfront Research Park property (see http://www.uoregon.edu/~uosenate/dirsen078/RRP-v5final080312.pdf for the UO’s letter in response). The university responding to the city by identifying a number of issues to overcome, including leasing and relocation costs, access to the site, and a few hundred million dollars to replace the park. Nevertheless, the city voted unanimously to look into the matter further. Vice President for Research Rich Linton added that the university is not looking to change the nature of mission of the research park; the discussion was prompted by the city. He noted that many facilities south of the railroad tracks would need to be relocated, and thus there were timing as well as expense issues. He there would be further discussions with the city, the developers, the Fairmont neighborhood group, and the university. The vice president noted that there is no commitment of any kind from the university other than to listen to what is being proposed.

REPORTS

Update on parking and the new arena project. Vice President Dyke reported that an East Campus Planning Committee is being formed under the co-leadership of a faculty member and an administrator. The group will look at parking and transportation issues in relation to the East Gate development part of the campus, in particular, the proposed new basketball arena and other buildings proposed for the area (alumni center and academic learning center). There will be opportunity to recommend amendments to the existing plan.

In addition, Ms. Dyke noted that parking fees for the current year and proposed for next year are set to fully fund existing obligations independent of new East Campus parking improvements. Current parking fees do not cover the current parking program expenses for operations, maintenance, and staff. The proposed fees for next year also will cover $2.7 million in existing debt for bicycle sheds, parking improvements, and debts from the ‘80s and ‘90s. She said that a hearing for special fees (including parking fees), fines, and penalties is scheduled for March 31st at 5:00 p.m. Both verbal and written testimony is accepted at that hearing.

Transportation issues present opportunities and challenges in the areas under construction (education and music buildings) and soon to be under construction (basketball arena). Ms. Dyke commented there have been conversations with LTD regarding changing bus services because a number of employees at Peace Health Hospital will soon be going to work at the River Bend hospital site. The UO is currently working with LTD to assure sufficient bus service on routes currently serving Peace Health, and about the availability of space in parking structures for both regular daytime and event parking. All parking solutions must balance transportation needs with sustainability. Underground parking in the East Gate area is being considered to accommodate housing expansions, the alumni center, the academic learning center, and the arena. The arena site itself will include approximately 200 spaces (there are about 220 spaces on the current Oregon Hall lot). Surface parking at the Romania site and ODOT (when purchased), and possibly property available through other purchases or trades may also help with parking needs. An above ground structure is possible further west on Franklin Boulevard with other partners such as the city and other local institutions.

Underground parking for up to 500 cars would be possible under 13^th Street with access to the alumni center, arena, and offices near 13^th and Agate. The cost is higher than above ground parking, but it would provide close in access for UO employees and preserves above ground sites for other activities including housing, research, and learning. Ms. Dyke said they are waiting for a cost proposal from the design team consultants. Cost saving is available by combing this parking project with other projects, and gifts are available to cover 40% of structure cost if the university chooses to go underground. Two biennia ago the UO received authority for F-bonds for parking facilities on the west side of campus, but could redirect it to the east side if that route is chosen. Ms. Dyke said the university is looking at a financial plan to cover 65% of debt service. The plan will be reviewed by Senate Budget Committee subcommittee on the arena. Also, the Traffic Impact Analysis is expected later in the month, which should address impact of an underground parking structure. The city will review the Traffic Impact Analysis and the possibility of an underground structure.

During a discussion period, Chris Ramey, campus architect, indicated that if an underground parking structure were built it would be done at the same time as the arena for cost savings. Just as is the case with current construction on campus (the education and music buildings), we would lose some parking spaces before we got them back, and we would need to find ways to deal with that problem.

Senate Vice President Paul Von Donkelaar, human physiology, asked whether the 200 spaces available on the arena site would be for general university use, and not for just for athletics’ use. Ms. Dyke replied that she did not have information on that question yet, but would make it available when she does.

Senator Nate Gulley, ASUO, asked if the plans for the arena have upstaged the plans for more student housing. Ms. Dyke replied that Vice President for Student Affairs Robin Holmes was away last term on an ACE fellowship but is now on campus and will be providing the leadership to move plans for student housing forward in concert with the Strategic Housing Plan.

Update on the Senate Budget Committee Subcommittee on Arena Financing. Vice President van Donkelaar indicated that the subcommittee is continuing to work with the administration to create memo of understanding about the seven recommendations made in their recent report. They have been working to understand the timelines and financial information concerning the underground structure for parking and how it relates to future development. The timeline is important because the decision regarding the underground parking structure has to be made on very short-term basis whereas the campus parking committee is looking at parking in more general terms and will have more time.

The vice president reported that he provided an update on the committee’s work at the March meeting of the State Board of Higher Education. The legislature has approved $200 million in bonds for the arena project and the governor is expected to sign off in the near future. The final administrative step is State Board approve most likely at the May meeting. Although the board had a number of questions concerning the justification for high funding level, but were generally satisfied given the athletic legacy fund. Mr. Van Donkelaar noted the subcommittee will continue to provide the board with updated information as available, and they will submit a letter reiterating many of the points made in our verbal report. Mr. Tim Black, governmental affairs, reported that the governor has signed the bill authorizing the $200 million bonding.

Winter 2008 Preliminary Curriculum Report. Mr. Paul Engelking, chair of the Committee on Courses, presented the curriculum report. Senator Gulley raised the issue of whether the many current multicultural courses listed are actually multicultural in nature and speak to issue of multiculturalism, especially for the lower level courses. Mr. Engelking replied that the Undergraduate Council is in the process of reviewing the multicultural requirement. The council conducted a review of all multicultural courses offered and identified a dozen or so that they felt did not meet the original intent of such courses and should be reexamined. The Undergraduate Council intends to bring a motion or a report to the senate so that there is discussion about what to with the requirement. The council is also reviewing a policy of reducing the number of 400 level courses. Currently the structure across 100 to 400 level courses is very top heavy at the 400 level. Mr. Engelking noted that any recommendations for changes would first come to the senate for approval. He indicated the council hopes to complete the general review this spring and make any recommendations then. With no other questions and no corrections to the report, the winter preliminary curriculum report was approved. (See http://www.uoregon.edu/~uosenate/dirsen078/CurRptW08.html for the the version distributed to the senate and http://www.uoregon.edu/~uosenate/dirsen078/FinCurRptW08.html for the final version.)

ANNOUNCEMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE FLOOR

Appointment of the Ad Hoc Task Force on Academic Freedom and Scholarly Publishing. President Sayre announced the following members to the task force, charged with working to meet the concerns raised pursuant to senate legislation passed previously (see http://www.uoregon.edu/~uosenate/dirsen078/US078-17.html). JQ Johnson, library, will chair the task force which includes members Dev Sinha, Alex Mathas, Andy Karduma, Elizabeth Peterson, and Chuck Williams.

Proposal to have course syllabi available prior the first day of classes. Student body president Emily McLain addressed the senate on an issue of importance to the students: having course syllabi posted and available for students prior to the first day of classes. Her goal in speaking to the senate was to begin a dialogue to encourage faculty members to utilize Duck Web and prepare their course syllabi in time for registration. She said the objective is to provide adequate information about course work for students during the planning stage of their next term’s course work. Having the syllabi earlier would decrease the number of dropping and adding classes during the beginning of the term. She explained that Duck Web has the capability for faculty to post links to their own websites or to their course syllabi. She opined that by having more information available earlier in the registration process, student would make better choices in finding the appropriate course for them. A discussion ensued, urging flexibility and a variety of possible solutions, such as an archive of previous course syllabi for reference. Generally, the sense was that faculty might be able to have syllabi ready a few days earlier, but it was unlikely they would uniformly be available two weeks before the start of the new term. Ms. McLain asked that any suggested be emailed to her at asuopres@uoregon.edu.

Update of resolution 07/08-10 requesting the Attorney General’s clarification regarding the University Assembly quorum issue. It was reported that a draft of a letter to be sent to the attorney general is nearly ready and will be made available to the senate shortly. (See http://www.uoregon.edu/~uosenate/dirsen078/US078-10.html for relevant legislation.)

Spring Elections. The secretary reminded everyone that the beginning of spring term will mark the nominations period for election to the University Senate and other university level elected committees and council. She encouraged the senators to talk with colleagues and encourage them to stand for elections to the various positions. The usual web page of nominations and candidates for positions will be posted on the senate web page and updated frequently up to the close of nominations on April 18^th. Voting will begin the following week and run through May 5^th.

UNFINISHED BUSINESS

Motion US07/08-13 concerning parking issues raised by the proposed arena project. Mr. Peter Keyes, architecture, explained that the motion was originally brought the floor for discussion in January, and then was postponed until March with the expectation that more tangible information would be available in the interim to make a better decision about the motion. However, no more tangible information is known now than was known in January. Thus, Mr. Keyes suggested that the senate proceed with the discussion and vote on the motion, which follows:

Whereas the City of Eugene Code may require up to 2778 parking spaces for the proposed arena, and

Whereas it appears that the current design for the proposed arena includes a minimal amount of new parking capacity,

Be it moved that:

(1) the Athletic Department shall make available the results of any traffic impact and parking study it has commissioned.

(2) the cost of providing any additional parking for the proposed arena (whether as a condition for approval by the city of Eugene, or as a result of further market analysis), shall be included in the base budget for the arena project, and shall not be paid through increased parking fees for university faculty, staff, and students.

Mr. Keyes argued that no one knows at this point how the parking structure situation is going to turn out and won’t know for years. If we build an expensive parking garage and no one wants to buy those parking spaces and people park on surface streets, so how will it be paid for. He saw no sense in withdrawing the motion, and asked for a vote on it.

President Sayre wished to speak on the motion and consequently yielded the presiding chair to Vice President van Donkelaar to moderate the discussion. President Sayre commented that there was additional information from Vice President Dyke as explained earlier in the meeting in laying out a number of different scenarios. He argued to postpone action on the motion. A lengthy and somewhat disorganized discussion ensued. Senator Malle, psychology, said he would not want the Senate to pass motions which are a bit sloppy, saying that the first part seems straightforward and easy to enforce, but second part gets a bit muddled. He was very much in support of asking the administration to update the Senate, but unsure of the second part. Senator Amalia Gladhart spoke in favor of the motion saying that additional costs of arena parking should be included in the arena budget. Senator Ron Davies spoke in opposition to the motion. He was concerned the last part of second statement; how do we determine if increased parking fees are due to inflation or if parking structure costs are being passed along to us? A determination of how we view increase should be included. President Sayre then moved to postpone the motion until the April meeting, and it was seconded by Senator Gulley. Senator Gulley then spoke in opposition to postponing, saying that the original motion was self-evident and should be voted on. President Sayre urged voting to postpone the motion to have an opportunity to revise the second part for greater clarity. A vote to postpone the motion until the April meeting was defeated by voice vote. The main motion was again on the floor. Without further discussion, the question was called. A voice vote did not provide a clear majority so a hand vote was taken. Motion US07/08-13 passed with 13 in favor and 9 opposed.

Motion US07/08-7 (revised) regarding changes to required course evaluation questions.

Vice President van Donkelaar brought the following motion, seconded by Senator Malle, to the floor for discussion:

Preamble

Student evaluations play an important role both for improving teaching and in providing an opportunity for students to contribute to information included in the yearly evaluation of faculty. The 2006-07 Joint Senate-Academic Affairs Committee on Student Evaluations recommended that the current four required university-wide questions be replaced with a more comprehensive set of questions that would more accurately and consistently probe students' evaluations of course and instructor performance. In their report, the committee outlined a new set of questions that have subsequently been slightly revised by the 2007-08 Joint Senate-Academic Affairs Committee on On-line Course Evaluation Implementation and vetted by each college/unit and various faculty governance and administrative units.

The proposed new required university-wide questions will have a 7-2-3 structure. In particular, the first 7 quantitative questions plus the subsequent 2 qualitative questions will be the only university-wide questions used in the evaluation of faculty in yearly reviews and promotion & tenure cases. The remaining 3 questions related to course attendance, workload, and expected grade will allow instructors to better interpret the patterns of the main evaluation questions. It is important to note that these 3 questions will not be used to evaluate faculty. Finally, students will have access to responses to all of the first 7 quantitative questions. Additional questions beyond those contained in the 7-2-3 structure are the responsibility of individual departments/units.

Be it moved that:

The required university-wide questions for UO course evaluations, as adopted by the University Senate on May 8, 1996, and amended in US 97/98-10, be replaced with the following required university-wide questions.

Please share with us your basic perceptions of the course:

1. What was the quality of this course?