Minutes of the University Senate Meeting February 13, 2008

 

 

Present:  P. Boye, R. Davies, D. Falk, P. Gilkey, A. Gladhart, N. Gulley, E. Herman, D. Hernandez, J, Hunter*, P. Lambert, B. Malle, C. Martinez*, A. Mathas, C. Moore, J. Newton, D. Olson,  M. Pangburn, A. Papailiou, S. Paul, E. Peterson, N. Rajabzadeh, M. Redford, P. Rounds, J. Rowell, G. Sayre, A. Schulz , L. Stephen, F. Tepfer, T. Toadvine, N. Tublitz, P. van Donkelaar,

 

Excused: H. Briston, M. Chong*, C. Cherry

 

Absent:  C.A. Bassett, C. Bengston, G. Berk, R. Bramhall, L-S. Chou, A. Coles-Bjerre, R. Illig, D. Levin, P. Lu, L. Middlebrook, T. Minner, C. Parsons, F. Pyle, A. Taylor, L. Vandenburgh

 

 

CALL TO ORDER

 

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

 

APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES

 

Minutes from the regular senate meeting of January 9 and the special senate meeting of Jan23, 2008 were approved as distributed. 

 

STATE OF THE UNION

 

General Update from President Frohnmayer.  President Frohnmayer acknowledged the attendance of a number of students at the meeting who wished to speak to the senators regarding the students desire to have the Ethnic Studies Program become a department.  He yielded the floor for the students’ statement prior to beginning his own remarks.

Shante’ Stuart, Kari Herinckx, and Oscar Guerra addressed the senate noting that the students’ presence at the meeting was to bring awareness of and support for their attempt to have the Ethnic Studies Program gain full department level status at the university.  They gratefully acknowledged support students already have received from Senators Lynn Stephen, anthropology, and Ellen Herman, history, in this effort.  They noted that the UO is the only west coast AAU university without a department of ethnic studies.  Over the years, especially since the civil rights movement of the 1960s, the area of ethnic studies has grown to include the study of how oppression works globally.  The students suggested that because faculty have their tenure home in other departments, it is often difficult for faculty to have reasonable peer review of their scholarly work.  Because the number of faculty teaching in the area is limited, students have difficultly graduating since classes are not offered frequently enough; and, it is difficult to retain faculty who are lured to other jobs in universities that have departments in ethnic studies.  The students felt that transitioning the program to a department will serve to elevate the program and attract faculty.  

 

In pursing support for a new department, the students have been in contact with Interim CAS Dean Wendy Larson and Provost Linda Brady.  They hope that members of the senate will add their support to this effort as well.  President Frohnmayer assured the students that the issues are being considered seriously, noting that Provost Brady has been in discussions with CAS.  He added that the discussion is active and ongoing, saying that Provost Brady will meet with the Faculty Advisory Committee, as they have been asked to consider this issue and its ramifications.  He then thanked the students for their respectful participation.  

 

Regarding other matters, President Frohnmayer touched on several topics.  In the legislature, the arena project has received favorable consideration by the Ways and Means Committee. There is ongoing dialogue with the leadership of the legislature concerning assurance of backup reserves for funding the project.  He noted that Senate President Sayre has prepared a statement representing the senate’s views.  The legislature expects to adjourn by the end of February, so we can expect legislative action on the arena by then. 

 

Additionally, the president commented that the revenue forecast issued the previous week indicated a flatter projection than previous ones.  He was not suggesting budget cuts, but that an economic slowdown means prudence.  Consequently, OUS has sent information that money currently set aside for second year salaries has been temporarily postponed.  Nevertheless, the president assured everyone that he will fight to maintain the UO’s commitment to competitive salaries and academic quality.  He said the matter has the administration’s full attention and we will do our very best to attend to this situation.

 

The president then commented that matters of public safety will be the subject of the next presentation.  He noted the universities have received directives of the legislature to study campus safety which may implicate the way the university deploys campus security forces.  He alluded to a recent article – an editorial in The Register Guard – concerning the use of tasers, and assured everyone that taser use was not the issue on the table, but rather the larger issue is the way to deploy and retain appropriate campus security (see Mr. Park’s remarks below).  

 

On two other matters, the president reported that the search for a new dean in CAS has been proceeding well and he is hopeful it will reach a positive conclusion in the immediate future – he asked for a bit more patience but also expressed enthusiasm.  Lastly, the president said the matter concerning the inquiry into the release of staff and management of the Office of International Affairs is being conducted expeditiously and independently, with further information available shortly.

 

Proposed Changes to UO Public Safety Policies. Mr. Doug Park, assistant general counsel, report on a discussion underway regarding the ability of campuses, in general, to have a professional group of first responders to react to various types of campus emergencies.  He commented about the recent campus shootings at Virginia Tech University, but explained that discussions are broader, and include responding to day-to-day events.  There are many more safety issues in addition to campus shooting events that have to be considered, and the . State of Oregon is having a broad conversation with campuses about them.  A governor appointed task force is charged with developing recommendation for public safety issues for K-12 and the OUS.  He said it is important for the UO to voice its concerns, such as whether it is a good idea to have a system-wide approach to campus safety, given the broad diversity of our various campuses, or to have a flexible system tailored to each individual university.  The UO, and several reports emanating from the Virginia Tech experience, favors the latter.  Consequently, the UO is proposing a two-step process to the Chancellor’s Office that would change various legislative amendments to allow each university to choose a model within its budget that meets its needs, and to be authorized to have a separate law enforcement unit.  Mr. Parks noted that currently, campus security officers have very limited powers in pursuing and transporting individuals who are arrested.  Mr. Parks concluded by asking for comments and feedback on the handout of the proposed changes in campus security (see http://www.uoregon.edu/~uosenate/dirsen078/CampusSecMemo.pdf).

 

REPORTS

 

On-line course evaluations trial run and course evaluation implementation update.  Senate Vice President Paul van Donkelaar provided this report as Mr. Brad Shelton, who had orchestrated the trial run of course evaluations fall term 2007, was ill and unable to attend the meeting until later.  The vice president reported that he expects the committee working on revising the required course evaluation questions would have a motion to present to the senate at the March meeting.  He noted that the committee suggests limiting the questions that would be contributing to information on promotion and tenure cases to the first seven quantitative questions, plus the next two questions, which are qualitative.  The subsequent three questions would be used to help various administrative and academic units gain insights into how different categories of students evaluated their professors.  If the motion regarding these required questions passes at the March senate meeting, the new required questions would be sent to departments so that they can adjust their departmental questions in response to the required questions.  Departments will have spring term to get their questions to Mr. Shelton prior to the summer.  (Mr. Shelton arrived.)  Mr. Shelton commented that the departments should get their questions to him for a “live run” spring term – then edits and adjustments can be made over the summer in time for the new academic year in fall 2008. 

 

President Sayre clarified that the spring term evaluations run will provide a report that can be distributed to the departments.  He noted, too, that another motion addressing the administration and use of the data collected would come to the senate in April or May because the old legislation regarding the use of the evaluations needs updating.

 

Update on the search committee for the Jordon Schnitzer Museum of Art director.  Mr. Andrew Schulz, art history, reported that President Frohnmayer had written to Senate President Sayre in response to senate legislation passed last November requesting that the new director report again to the provost instead of the vice president for advancement, and asked that the letter be entered into the record (see  http://www.uoregon.edu/~uosenate/dirsen078/Frohnmayer-19Nov07.pdf for the letter and http://www.uoregon.edu/~uosenate/dirsen078/US078-6.html for the related legislation).  Mr. Schulz also reported that an offer made to a candidate was declined, but he characterized the action as a “successful non-hire”, and the search continues.  He remarked that the non-hire afforded more opportunity to further examine several key issues, including a close look at the bylaws and charter of the museum.  Additionally, a faculty task force is meeting with Interim Director Robert Melnick and Vice President for Advancement Allan Price.  He concluded his report saying the search committee hopes to hire a new director by the end of spring term. 

 

Interinstutional Faculty Senate (IFS) report.  Senator Peter Gilkey, mathematics, reported on a number of different issues and provided handouts for the senators’ information and review.  First, he drew attention to the nation-wide effort to ensure accountability on the part of higher education institutions for student learning and development, experiences, outcomes, measurements of learning gains between years.  Called the Voluntary System of Accountability, Senator Gilkey opined that it is important for the university to get out in front of movement in order to have an accountability tool we can live with instead of something less desirable (see http://www.uoregon.edu/~ifs/dir08/VSAoverview.pdf) .  Next, he turned to the Essential Skills Draft (5.0) that deals with proposed new high school diploma requirements to increase the number of course in English, math and science, and mastery of essential skills (9 listed) for graduation (see http://www.uoregon.edu/~ifs/dir08/EssentialSkillsDraft59Feb08.pdf) .  The principle question is how should essential skills be demonstrated?  Proposals have math and writing assessed on a state-wide basis, and other skills assessed on the local level with local input.  

 

Senator Gilkey then reported that each OUS campus has own list of comparator peer institutions.  For the UO, all the comparators are members of AAU and are major research institutions.  The comparators were established 10 years ago and OUS is now reviewing the lists.  The UO is content with the current list and suggests leaving the list as presently configured.  Senator Gilkey serves on a task force examining the comparator list and will keep the senate apprised of developments.

 

Lastly, Senator Gilkey reported improvements in the implementation of peer review of teaching.  He noted that although senate legislation in 1996 included peer review of teaching as an evaluation component for promotion and tenure, many departments were not compliant with the legislation, as was noted repeatedly in annual Faculty Personnel Committee reports.  Now, through a collaborative effort with the FPC and Academic Affairs, steps have been taken to increase the number of peer reviews completed this year; by 2010 all promotion and tenure files are expected to be in compliance with legislation.  Senator Gilkey acknowledged Vice Provost Russ Tomlin as being proactive in holding workshops to improve the number and quality of peer teaching reviews.  Similarly, Vice Provost Tomlin has facilitated the updating and web site availability of data summaries of the current required student course evaluations.  Vice Provost Tomlin in turn acknowledged both Mr. JP Monroe and Ms. Sherry Stahl, institutional research office, who were instrumental in gathering, coding, and posting the data.

 

Announcements and communications from the floor.  Senator Nate Gulley, ASUO, and Ms. Emily McLain, ASUO president, spoke further on the initiative to departmentalize the ethnic studies program, saying that students wanted to come to the senate to start a dialogue between faculty and students working on an academic excellence initiative.  Senator Stephen thanked the students for attending the meeting and gave notice of a forthcoming motion in support of departmentalization. 

 

Senator Ron Davies, economics, also gave notice of a forthcoming motion concerning the investigation into the staff dismissals and management of the international affairs office. 

 

UNFINISHED BUSINESS

 

Resolution US07/08-15 concerning revenue sharing with the athletics department.  Vice President van Donkelaar brought the following motion to the floor for discussion:

Whereas, the Administration uses cross-subsidization as a mechanism to successfully manage the University budget,

And whereas, the 2004 Athletics Task Force Report endorsed by the University Senate recommended that the Athletic Department make "meaningful contributions" to the general fund to underscore the connection between athletics and academia,

And whereas, the Legacy Fund provides the opportunity for flexibility in the Athletic Department's budget,

Be it moved that:

 

The Athletic Department, Administration, and Faculty work together to outline a mechanism that, under the appropriate fiscal conditions, would allow the Athletic Department to provide a meaningful proportion of their yearly revenues to the general fund to aid the academic mission of the university.

 

During a discussion period, questions focused on the reciprocity that might arise with this motion, that is, if academics expect to share in revenues from the athletics department when they are “in the black”, would athletics expect to receive help from academics if revenues fall short and the department is “in the red”?  Senator Bertram Malle, psychology, while commending the athletics department for their financial self-sufficiency, asked if there ere sufficient safeguards in place to guard academics against filling the gaps if athletics should run a deficit at some point.  The concern was whether the motion had funds going only one direction, that is, from athletics to academics, if there is a surplus.  Senator Patrick Boye, ASUO-commented that the motion was somewhat different than the motion delayed from the previous meeting, to which Vice President van Donkelaar replied that indeed the motion had been revised and streamlined.  President Sayre also noted that the concept of the motion was consistent with recommendations from the task force on athletics report of several years ago.  The consensus that funds would go only one direction (from athletics to academics) was supported by President Frohnmayer.  He asked senators to pay attention to the motion’s words of “working together” and “outline” and “appropriate fiscal conditions”.  He noted, too, the cautions of the Senate Budget Committee sub committee with respect to the arena in which they suggested conservatism in expenditure patterns and in fiscal reserves.  He remarked that there probably would not be enough substantial reserves to share with academics for at least a decade; these fiscal strictures are part of bond revenue funding for the arena project. 

 

With the discussion winding down, the question was called.  Motion US07/08-15 concerning revenue sharing with the athletics department was put to a voice vote and carried, with one dissenting voice.

 

US07/08-9 concerning adding three classified staff senators with full voting rights.  Senator Gilkey brought the following motion to the floor:

 

Moved that:

1.     Section 4.13 of the Senate Enabling Legislation is amended to read:

o      4.13 Three classified staff shall be elected to serve in the University Senate. Classified staff Senators shall have the same rights as other Senators, including full voting privileges, and shall abide by all regulations adopted by the University Senate for its members. The Secretary shall arrange for the election of the classified staff Senators following election and eligibility procedures for officers of administration as described in the University Senate enabling legislation sections 3, 4, and 5.

2.     US01/02-5, which added 3 non-voting classified staff participants to the UO Senate, is repealed.

3.     and brings the total number of voting Senators to fifty one (51).

 

These changes are effective as of the first meeting of the 2008-2009 University Senate

 

During the discussion period, it was clarified that the three members of the classified staff on the senate are non-voting participants.  This motion would grant voting rights to classified staff senators.  Ms. Sue Martinez, Ms. Star Holmberg, classified staff non-voting participant and former non-voting participant, spoke in favor of the motion, saying that the classified staff are an important part of the university and deserve to have voting representation.  Ms. Holmberg referred to earlier discussions of voting rights for classified staff several years ago in which the issue of conflicts with union representation were raised, and which effectively prevented voting participation of classified staff in the senate.  She noted the many other faculty senates in the OUS that have union representation and who also have voting rights in the senates.  Senator Nathan Tublitz, biology, also spoke in favor of the motion, recalling the notion that we are a University Senate, not (just) a faculty senate.  He also opined that the senate should be inclusive.  (At this point the question was called, but not voted on since the sense of the room was that discussion should continue.) 

 

Senator Melissa Redford, linguistics, is a new senator and asked for more clarity about the role and power of the senate.  Paul Simonds, emeritus anthropology and former senate president prior to the senate’s reorganization in 1996, indicated that the governance charter says the “president and the professors” govern the university, and over the years, the senate has come to take on the role of the professors.  Senator Malle said that the arguments in support of the motion were convincing, and asked why the memo from the Department of Justice weighing in the issue was necessary.  General Counsel Melinda Grier said the previous advice she had received about classified staff membership and voting right in the senate had to do with the way the labor laws were written, that is, collective bargaining is governed by state law and there are certain restrictions on who can be involved in management.  Previously the DOJ said voting classified staff was not admissible; this time they said they had serious concerns and advised against it.

 

Senator Tublitz again emphasized that the most recent statement from DOJ says they have reservations, but does not forbid it legally.  Thus, he felt the senate should move ahead and pass the motion.  With no one speaking in opposition, the question was brought to a vote.  Motion US07/08-9, which adds three voting classified staff members to the University Senate in place of non-voting participants, passed unanimously by voice vote. 

 

NEW BUSINESS

 

US07/08-17 concerning an initiative to protect rights of faculty authors of scholarly publications.  Senator Elizabeth Peterson, library, brought the following motion to the floor: 

 

Whereas, trends in scholarly publishing make it increasingly important for faculty to consider copyright issues and rights of the authors of scholarly publications

 

Moved, that the University of Oregon University Senate:

·       A) Encourages all faculty who publish scholarly works to study the issues of copyright ownership and liability, for example as laid out by the Association for Research Libraries SPARC initiative (http://www.arl.org/sparc/author/)

·       B) Recommends that if faculty sign a copyright transfer agreement for their work they should include an Author's Addendum as part of the transfer, retaining rights at least to archive their own work and to continue to use their own work in their teaching and research; suggested addenda include the Science Commons addenda at http://scholars.sciencecommons.org/

·       C) Directs the President of the Senate to establish an ad hoc working committee, that shall

o      a. foster educational opportunities for UO faculty related to copyright and copyright liability during spring term 2008.

o      b. propose additional steps to implement this resolution, implement Senate Resolution US00/01-5, and protect the rights of university authors. Such proposals should include at a minimum whether a UO-specific Author's Addendum should be recommended or required.

o      c. report to the full Senate no later than 28 May 2008.

 

Senator Peterson explained that the motion encourages all faculty members to study issues of copyright, ownership and liability, and recommends that faculty sign an authors’ addendum to retain some ownership of their work to use in teaching and research.  It also directs the president of the senate to establish a task force in spring term to provide educational opportunities for faculty on copyright issues and to implement the motion.  The motion builds on recommendation from the Library Committee that resulted in the 2001 legislation, but puts some “teeth” in the motion.  She noted that other universities, such as the University of Illinois, passed the Author’s Addendum, which allows authors to reproduce their work in other ways, such as putting scholarly papers on a website, or blog, but makes it illegal if transferred to journal publishing.  The idea is to help authors to understand their rights and be more informed about what transfer of copyright means.  ,

 

Librarian JQ Johnson added several more points.  The first point is that that when one thinks about scholarly publishing the most striking thing is that it is heterogeneous -- what constitutes publishing means different things in different fields.  He said that this motion is a recommendation; it allows a faculty member to take into account discipline specificity and allows people to operate in a situation in which they know they need to protect rights.  The second point is that copyright is very complex, and that is why there is a recommendation for a working committee.  The third point is that there is very clear trend that relates to these issues.  Harvard passed a resolution similar to this one recently clearly focused on protecting faculty rights to use their work in the future.  Mr. Johnson commented that we really are in a situation where there is a national trend.

 

With discussion dwindling, the question was called.  Motion US07/08- 17 regarding the initiative to protect the rights of faculty authors of scholarly publications passed by voice vote, with one dissenting voice.  President Sayre indicated he will name an ad hoc working committee on the issue at the next meeting. 

 

US07/08-10 to amend the Enabling Legislation that concerns calling a meeting of the University Assembly.  Senator Gilkey introduced the following motion:

 

Effective upon passage of this legislation:

1. The following motions are repealed: US03/04-10, US05/06-1, US06/07-3, US07/08-2.
2. Sections 6.3 through 6.6 of the Enabling Legislation are repealed and replaced by the following Section 6.3:

6.3. The University Assembly, with full legislative power, shall be convened by an affirmative vote of the University Senate or after a petition to so convene has been signed by 33 % of those eligible to vote for non student senators.

 
6.3.1 A meeting of the University Assembly with full legislative power shall be held at 3:30 PM, on a Wednesday, not less than ten nor more than 25 days from the time of the affirmative vote of the University Senate or from the time of the submission of a valid petition as provided for in 6.3.5, except that no meeting shall be scheduled for exam week, between quarters or during the summer quarter. In such an event, the meeting would be scheduled for the second Wednesday of the subsequent quarter.

6.3.2 The Secretary of the Faculty shall send timely notification of the meeting to all members of the University Assembly. The notification shall remind recipients that they are members of the Assembly and that the University will be closed from 3:00 PM to 6:00 PM on the day of the meeting to facilitate attendance. Further notification of the meeting shall include notices in the Daily Emerald and on the University Calendar, Senate, and Assembly Web sites. On the Monday immediately prior to the meeting, members shall be reminded to attend. The reminder shall include the text of this section (6.3.2).

6.3.3 An alphabetical list of Assembly Members (without phone numbers or e-mail addresses) shall be maintained and linked from the University Assembly Web site. The list shall be headed by the criteria for membership as specified by the Enabling Legislation and the list shall be updated annually, as early in the Fall Quarter as is feasible.

6.3.4 The UO Secretary shall maintain an annually updated list of Assembly Members with phone numbers and e-mail addresses. The list shall be used only to forward communications, from the University President, the Secretary of the Faculty, or the UO Senate President, that are relevant to the business of the University Assembly.

 
6.3.5 The University adopts the following procedures to enable a University Assembly to convene with full legislative power by petition:

(a) Prior to circulating a petition to convene the Assembly with full legislative power, Petitioners will submit the text of their petition, endorsed by at least 40 Assembly Members, to the Secretary of the Faculty who will forthwith give notification of the petition to members of the Assembly. The announcement shall include the text of the petition and a copy of 6.3.5 (b) below. A printed Voting Faculty membership list with campus addresses, organized by departments, shall be made available to petitioners by the Secretary of the Faculty upon submission of a petition endorsed by at least 40 Assembly Members.

(b) Deans, directors and department heads will adopt practices, appropriate for their administrative units, that promote the face-to-face accessibility of their University Assembly Members to petitioners.

(c) In order for the petition to go into effect, petitioners must submit sufficient valid signatures to the Secretary within 100 days of the petition announcement.

6.3.6 A list of the Voting Faculty with campus addresses shall be maintained and linked from the University Assembly Web site. The list shall be headed by the criteria for membership as specified by the charter and the list shall be updated annually, as early in the Fall Quarter as is feasible. 

 

Senator Gilkey explained that this motion is essentially housekeeping to clarify and codify in the Enabling Legislation Section 6 the means for calling an Assembly meeting with full legislative authority.  The legislative record was confused prior to a recent DOJ memo indicating that the senate could indeed amend the Enabling Legislation.  In essence, the motion repeals the old legislation and incorporates its text into the body of the Enabling Legislation, and it removes the requirement to hold quarterly assembly meetings, which were not occurring.  The efficacy of the proposed legislation seemed apparent to all as there was no further discussion.  Motion US07/08-16 to amend section 6 of the Enabling Legislation to codify calling a University Assembly meeting with full legislative authority passed unanimously by voice vote.

 

Resolution US07/08-10 to obtain a clarification from the DOJ regarding the required majority to pass legislation in the University Assembly.  Mr. Frank Stahl, emeritus biology, brought the following resolution to the floor:

 

WHEREAS UO President Frohnmayer has mentioned (in a conversation on 27 February 2003 with representatives of about 550 petitioners requesting a meeting of the UO Assembly with legislative power, at a recorded discussion held shortly after that aborted Assembly meeting, and on the Senate floor last Spring and on 9 January 2008) a ruling from the Attorney General specifying that a UO Assembly with legislative power can vote on a motion only if it meets the quorum requirement of the Oregon Public Meeting Law and that it can pass a motion only by an affirmative vote of a majority of the Assembly Membership, and

 

WHEREAS the motion that created the UO Senate as the normal governing body of the University is documented to have been passed by an affirmative vote of less than half of the Assembly membership, with the effect that the legitimacy of the Senate and all of its actions is put in doubt,

 

BE IT RESOLVED that the Senate President seek timely clarification (with arguments) from the Attorney General regarding the following issues:

 

·1. Is a UO Assembly with legislative power (approximately 2,000 members) able to pass a motion only by affirmative vote of a majority of its membership, and

 

2. If so, how does such a UO Assembly differ from other governing bodies, such as City Councils, School Boards, etc., for which legislation is enacted by an affirmative vote of a majority of the members present (given that the quorum requirement has been met)?

 

Mr. Stahl explained that when an attempt was made in 2003 to hold a meeting of the University Assembly with full legislative authority there was an understanding that a quorum of 50% plus one of the full University Assembly membership was needed.  Mr. Stahl indicated, that at that time, President Frohnmayer announced that to pass any legislation a majority vote of the entire membership was necessary.  Mr. Stahl opined that no policy making body that meets under the Public Meeting Law is required to have a majority of the entire membership to pass legislation.  Consequently, the motion asks the senate president to request clarification of this issue from the Attorney General.  

 

On a point of clarification, Senator Gilkey asked President Sayre how he would proceed if the motion passes.  President Sayre indicated he would craft a letter to the Attorney General asking for clarification as indicated in the motion.  Mr. Stahl added that previous senate presidents had written to the Attorney General for opinions and clarifications on other governance matters, so there was a precedent.  With that explanation, Resolution US07/08-10 was put to a voice vote and passed with one dissenting voice.

 

ADJOURNMENT

 

In one last announcement before adjournment, Senate President Sayre welcomed Senator Fred Tepfer to the senate.  Senator Tepfer replaces Senator Karen Kennedy who recently resigned from the university.  The meeting was adjourned at 5:00 p.m.

 

Gwen Steigelman

Secretary of the Faculty