Minutes of the Organizational Meeting of the University Senate Wednesday May 28, 2008

 

 

Present: C. Bengtson, H. Briston, P. Gilkey, A. Gladhart, N, Gulley, E. Herman, J. Hurwit, M. Jaeger, C. Jones, P. Lambert, D. Levin, K. Lenn, S. Libeskind, H. Lin, C. McNelly, T. Minner, C.V. Moore, D. Olson, E. Peterson, S. Plummer, R. Rejaie, M. Redford, G. Sayre, L. Stephen, P. van Donkelaar

 

Excused: N. Butto, R. Illig, A. Mathas, L. Middlebrook, S. Paul, C. Parsons,

 

Absent: L-S Chou, R. Davies, C. Ellis, A. Emami, D. Falk, J. Hunter, D. Miller, P. Rounds, J. Rowell, A. Taylor, T. Toadvine, N. Tublitz, L. Vanderburgh

 

 

CALL TO ORDER

 

Senate President Gordon Sayre called the organizational meeting of the University Senate to order at 3:05 p.m. in the Knight Library Browsing Room.

 

ORIENTATION

 

Introductions. President Sayre thanked everyone for coming to the meeting and asked the newly elected senators to introduce themselves. He noted that there would be several vacant seats for the coming year as fewer individuals opted to stand for election than were available positions. He indicated his appreciation for those who did step forward to participate in faculty governance.

 

Senate operations. The secretary advised the senators of the importance of using their names and signing the sign-in sheet, used for attendance and voting record purposes. Additionally, she alerted everyone to the senate’s listserv address and provided guidance for navigating the senate’s webpage, alluding to the wealth of information, historical and current, posted on the web.

 

Parliamentarian Paul Simonds, emeritus anthology, addressed the senators explaining that his position is appointed by the senate president with his main duties to give him advice and be present to help with meeting process. He said that all senators are entitled to ask him for advice on parliamentary matters.

 

REMARKS

 

Comments from University President Dave Frohnmayer. President Frohnmayer thanked Senate President Sayre for an opportunity to briefly address the group. He outlined a number of topics that are current or on the horizon, such as the unexpected and welcome student enrollment surge for fall. He noted that the campus need to be prepared for additional courses, but insured the faculty those resources would be in place to accommodate the large enrollment. He noted the enrollment surge has stressed hosing options, but he said he could now assure that every student who applied on time is guaranteed housing; creativity and a great deal of effort have made arrangements to have private spaces to provide appropriate residences for students.

 

Second, the president noted that the bond issuance for arena project has been approved; he expects to hear from a hearing office by June 3^rd if an additional permit is required, and the expectation is to break ground by September 20, 2008. Also, the gift of the academic learning center is on track, with a first floor auditorium for general use by the University Senate meetings and others. Similarly, a number of people, including IFS representative Peter Gilkey, have been working hard in petitioning the governor and state board to release funds for salary enhancement; they are waiting for the financial forecast, and he hopes to have more concrete information by the end of June.

 

Lastly, the president mentioned several construction projects that are on the being completed or are on the drawing board, including the task force working on the future use of Mac Court, the Alumni Center, parking issues, and the Academic Learning Center. He noted the UO Foundation will meet over the summer months as will the administrative leadership, so there are a number of agenda items for a very busy summer. He thanked President Sayre for his leadership of the senate and presented him with a small token of appreciation.

 

Reflections on the past year. President Sayre preceded his remarks for adding his personal thank you to a number of people for various contributions throughout the year; the secretary, parliamentarian, webmaster, members of the Senate Budget Committee, the Senate Executive Committee, J.Q. Johnson (library), Dave Hubin (president’s office), and others. President Sayre next presented some formal remarks, the text of which follows under the title, “Are you a Team Player?”

 

The phrase is of course a cliché of human resources and job search discourses. It is a propos I feel because of the controversy over the emphasis on UO team sports, chiefly football and basketball, compared to the departments, offices and laboratories in which faculty and staff are organized. I'd like to ask each of you: Do you feel part of a team in your duties here at the UO? Professors jealously guard their independence, yet we are engaged in an endeavor, education, which should not be regarded as a competition with winners and losers. On the field or court, one team must lose for the other to win, and not every team in the conference can compile a winning record to please its fans every year. By contrast, the success of the brightest of our students is not predicated on the failures of others. In what influential economists have called the “winner take all society,” I fear that the public is losing sight of the cooperative values of education. One of the great virtues of Oregon I feel has been the egalitarian spirit among the faculty. The star system that prevails at many research universities has not taken hold widely around here, and some departments have tremendous “esprit de corps,” I hope you agree that yours does.

 

But will this cooperative ethic continue? If we become increasingly reliant on private gifts to support new programs, will we also see increasing disparities between the haves and the have-nots? And what processes will determine the two groups? I won't soon forget sitting in a meeting with the Provost's Advisory Committee on Academic Excellence where Vice President for Advancement Allan Price outlined the details of Lorey Lokay's amazing $70 million gift, and which units would get what shares of that money. None of the faculty on the committee was among the direct recipients, and I was dismayed that Allan's remarks were greeted with silence. Likewise, I've been concerned about the disappointment and resentment I've heard from some faculty who are not among the forty who have been selected for "faculty of excellence" awards in the first two years of this program. There are many deserving faculty, and when so many faculty are paid so poorly, the value of team spirit is something the UO cannot afford to lose, but I fear it is put at increasing risk. Faculty governance depends upon a voluntarism that comes with esprit de corps, with a sense of shared goals and shared purposes, not to mention faculty contributions to myriad other duties such as advising students and developing new courses.

 

Over "north of the river" as some people say, many of the same issues of recruitment and retention absorb the attention of administrators in the Moshofsky Center. Coaches must build teams, and they vie for the "high value" scholarship recruits who must be lured to the UO with the prospect of gleaming new facilities, skilled and attentive coaches and trainers, and a key position in the team's lineup which may lead to stardom or, the real long-shot, a pro career. The recruiters and athletes can't bargain on salary, of course.

 

Colleagues who have attended the faculty appreciation day tour and luncheon that coincides with the spring football game have been struck by the contrasts between these recruiting efforts. The new athletic training and treatment center is "the best in the country"--are the labs and libraries on campus equally stellar? Let's not forget that in addition to the top recruits there is also a large cadre of non-stars who must block for and pass to the marquee heroes, who must teach the introductory courses and advise the PhD candidates who may be struggling to pass their comps. The major difference between the sports teams and the faculty and staff teams is that players on the former are limited to four years' eligibility, whereas those on the latter often stay at Oregon for ten, twenty years or longer. As the UO begins a search for a new president I think we should think of faculty governance as a form of institutional memory, a home team on the home court.

 

At meetings this year I have heard several folks, both faculty and administrators, express the desire to somehow move beyond the past patterns of antagonism between athletics and academics at the UO. Some feel that team spirit unites athletics and academics. But as I've explained, the team player metaphor only goes so far, and I will predict that the controversy is not going away. From talking with faculty around campus I sense that the frustration and ill-feeling is as strong as ever. And two factors may soon exacerbate this.

 

Next week the Oregon State Board of Higher Education will vote on the approval of a $200 million bond issue to build the new basketball arena. I've followed the twists and turns of this project all year and I could speak to you for a solid hour about it. Let just point out two key things today:

 

First, the decision earlier this month by the state treasurer's office that the entire bond issue will be taxable, not tax-exempt bonds as previously planned, is good and bad news. Good news because it removes the danger that the IRS might find the plan in violation of arbitrage restrictions, a risk that several faculty critics called attention to, and that Oregon Emerald reporter Ryan Knutson did a great job writing about. However, the new plan will add at least a million and a half dollars to the annual debt service. When the project was described in January, at the time our subcommittee on arena financing issued its report, the plan was for 40-year bonds at a tax-exempt municipal bond rate, and the estimated annual debt service was $11.25 million. Now the plan is for 30-year taxable bonds, and the estimated annual debt service is $15.39 million. The difference is roughly $4 million dollars; compare that to the current annual ticket revenue of Oregon Men's basketball in Mac Court of just under $2.5 million. I believe that those who approved of the plan with the lower figure should have a chance to reconsider now that the annual cost is $4 million more.

 

Second, the total annual expenses associated with the new arena: debt on the construction, the land, and the parking garage, together with operating and maintenance costs, will be close to $19 million. The entire athletic dept. budget is about $47 million per year. The athletics Legacy Fund certainly can absorb these costs for some years to come, but to keep the Athletics department financially independent, as it has been for the past several years, and to support the addition of varsity baseball and the pace of growth that the Athletics department has come to expect will, I believe, require substantial ongoing donations to the Legacy Fund. I fear that the large proportion of private fundraising going to athletics, which was more than 35% during Campaign Oregon, will continue in the years ahead.

 

Is the perceived rivalry between academics and athletics priorities grounded among a small minority of outspoken faculty leaders? Is it based on inaccurate data, upon misunderstandings or ignorance? I think not. And in the next year as the Arena and the Academic Center for Student Athletes (which, I can’t resist telling you, is referred to several times in the licensing agreement with "the donor" as the "Athletic Center for Student Athletes") both begin construction near Agate Street and Franklin Blvd., I predict that more and more faculty will voice concerns about how the UO's priorities have been set, and how we will be perceived by Oregon citizens, by our prospective students and faculty members, and by our colleagues at other universities. The two new buildings are to form a new "east campus gateway," and those who pass through, and look to one side at the most expensive university basketball arena in the country, and to the other side at the reflecting pool in front of the glittering facade of a building stocked with three-quarters of a million dollars of new computer equipment for the exclusive use of athletes and their tutors, may say to themselves "yes, I want to join this team," especially if it is a sports team. But what about others who are considering joining a department, a lab, or a Freshman Interest Group? They may wonder as they enter the east campus gateway, where are the classes taught? where are the laboratories and faculty offices? where is the science library? where are the studios for art and architecture students? where can I go if I need help with my math or writing skills? And when visitors see these facilities they may remark upon how small, old, or decrepit many of these rooms and buildings are at a Pac 10 flagship state university.

 

As Senate President I see my role as representing the interests of all the Senate’s constituencies, not to advance my own interests or complaints, but my term is now over. I'd like to tell you about my office in PLC; it is 100 square feet, too small for the book collection of a humanities scholar, and barely large enough for myself and two students. My desk is solid oak and was purchased new for $109.44, and I’m happy with it. But in fifteen years the office has never been painted, nor carpeted, and I recently learned that my departmental team is not on the list for the program to refurbish offices, a plan I'd heard about several times from Vice-President Frances Dyke this year. My office is next door and across the hall from those of dear friends, colleagues, teammates. I don't really want to move. But when the strongest of those wonderful winter rain squalls roll in from the Coast Range the water sometimes leaks through the windows onto the floor. When the temperature was in the eighties two weeks ago, the heat was on and I sweltered, and as the highs last week were in the upper fifties, the heat had been turned off and I shivered. Once every three years or so someone comes in and cleans the blinds. I did get a new desk chair that I didn't have to pay for out of my research accounts. There was one other capital improvement in PLC. At some time in the 1990s someone realized that having windows that swung open a full 90-degrees might pose some kind of safety risk to disgruntled faculty and graduate teaching fellows, so maintenance staff went around and screwed in small rectangular blocks in the sills so that one can no longer crank the windows open wide. Now that's retention.

 

The retirement of President Frohnmayer next year the University of Oregon will conclude another chapter in its history, a period of strong growth and remarkable achievements. But we face major challenges in the future; not only challenges that face other state universities and the entire nation, which I need not list for you, but special challenges of preserving and promoting what I love most about the UO: the scenic and friendly surroundings in Eugene and on campus, and the team spirit among our colleagues. The UO is a place where faculty and administrators call each other by their first names, and where, though they may disagree sharply about policies and priorities, all trust in one another’s good faith and commitment to improving our institution. For these reasons, I support the home team, and I hope you will too.

 

ORGANIZATIONAL BUSINESS

 

Nomination and Election of senate vice president for 2008-09. President Sayre asked if there are any nominations for the position of vice president to which Paul van Donkelaar replied that Peter Gilkey had agreed to be nominated and to serve if elected. With no other nominations forthcoming, President Sayre put the nomination of Peter Gilkey for senate vice president to a vote and he was confirmed unanimously.

 

Confirmation of incoming Senate President Paul van Donkelaar. Outgoing Senate President Sayre invited Paul van Donkelaar to the front of the room for his confirmation as senate president, and the passing of the gavel to Paul, who graciously thanked Gordon, and then began some remarks.

 

Remarks from 2008-09 Senate President Paul van Donkelaar. President van Donkelaar provided the following remarks to the assembled group.

 

First of all, let me thank all new and returning senators for making the commitment to university governance. Your time and effort are greatly appreciated and I will do my best to make sure that they are put to good use. Next year will be an exciting year full of many challenges. In my view there will be three topics that will occupy most of my time as Senate president and two topics that I want the Senate to spend considerably less time on than we have in the recent past.

 

Let me start with the latter two topics first. One thing I want the Senate to spend very little time discussing next year is athletics. To the extent that the Legacy Fund will allow the athletics department to maintain financial self-sufficiency, I feel that we are at a point where the Senate as a whole doesn't need to dedicate a great deal of time to issues directly related to athletics. That doesn't mean that there won't be checks in place. In fact, last year's senate budget committee subcommittee on arena financing, of which outgoing president Sayre and I will continue to be members, is in the process of evolving into a subcommittee tracking the budget of the athletic department as a whole. This is necessary because the financing of the arena, the Legacy Fund, and the athletic department budget are intricately intertwined. Our subcommittee will meet with athletic department representatives and vice-president for finance and administration Frances Dyke at regular intervals this coming year and into the near future to transparently monitor the impact of the arena construction on the Legacy Fund and the athletic department budget. We will provide annual reports to the Senate and the Intercollegiate Athletic Committee to keep these bodies up to date on the latest most relevant information. If everything goes the way the athletic department envisions, then these reports will be very positive. If, on the other hand, things don’t work out as well as the athletic department had hoped, then our reports will reflect that as well. The benefit of the presence of the Legacy Fund is that it will provide a temporal buffer of 10-15 years during which the athletic department can make the adjustments necessary to right the ship – and President Frohnmayer has made it very clear that such adjustments are the responsibility of the athletic department and the donors who support the athletic department mission, not the general university budget. Having said this, I think it would be very beneficial if the athletic department could provide the relevant faculty governance bodies with a strategic plan which outlines their goals for the next decade both in terms of the addition of any new teams and the construction of any new facilities. Such a plan would provide a framework for faculty governance bodies to truly advise the athletic department and the administration in a proactive manner rather than simply react on short notice to the latest announcements.

 

A more general issue indirectly related to the Athletic department that the Senate should be aware of is the pressure on donors to maintain the Legacy Fund and how this affects the potential for giving to the academic components of the University. In our current financial environment in which state support is dwindling and philanthropic sources are increasingly relied upon to support different aspects of the academic mission of the university, the effects of this pressure should not be ignored. As senate president I would like to work with the vice-president of advancement Allen Price to monitor this potential issue and, through the Senate, contribute to the discussion of how best to mitigate it.

 

A second issue that I would like to see substantially less discussion of is the Assembly. We have spent a great deal of time and effort both within Senate meetings and behind the scenes attempting to more clearly define the role and legislative authority of the Assembly relative to that of the Senate. In my opinion, it is time to stop doing so. The Senate IS the body of faculty and university governance on campus. It more than adequately represents the wishes of the faculty and other university constituents to contribute to the decisions affecting campus. An additional level of governance structure embodied in the Assembly will not add to this decision-making process in any appreciable manner and, therefore, is not worth the considerable effort required to make it functional. There are many other important issues that would be better served by the finite amount of time we have available to us. In this regard, there will be a motion brought to the 1^st senate meeting in the fall that will ask you to consider abolishing the Assembly. When making your decision on this motion, I urge you to consider the costs in terms of the considerable time and effort it would take to make the Assembly functional relative to the seemingly negligible benefits that would accrue as a result.

 

The three main issues that I would like to focus on next year are the renovation of faculty governance, a commitment to addressing faculty salaries, and a successful search for a new university president. At many different levels, these three issues are remarkably interrelated – and the thing that really ties them together is money, or a lack thereof. Last fall, President Frohnmayer presented to the SBHE a proposal that calls for the UO to become more autonomous from the state system. This would free the university from the financial shackles imposed by the state and allow us to set our own course with respect to tuition rates. Such a plan is not without risks as there is the possibility that in difficult financial times underperforming units and programs would be in jeopardy of being cutback. However, I think the potential short- and long-term benefits associated with financial autonomy from the state substantially outweigh the possible costs. Indeed, similar arrangements have been implemented within a number of different state systems throughout the nation with positive benefits for institutions not unlike the UO.

 

Thus, I think the possibility of a more autonomous UO should be pushed forward at least two levels in the coming year. First, President Frohnmayer should be urged to continue to raise this scenario with the SBHE, the OUS, and the legislature. By keeping it at the forefront of their thinking, it is more likely to become a reality in the next 5-10 years. Second, I think that the university presidential candidates identified in the upcoming search should be ready to support the implementation of this plan, or provide very compelling reasons why they would not like to push it forward.

 

Whether through financial autonomy from the state system or some other means, more money needs to be dedicated to improving faculty salaries. The report of this year’s SBC examined this issue and provided a number of alternative scenarios through which the salary issue can be addressed and I urge you all to read it if you haven’t already. The report makes it clear that the focus should be on salaries and not total compensation. Moreover, it also makes it clear that any additional funding for salaries needs to be distributed in a strategic manner – in particular, underpaid units and/or categories of faculty should receive a larger proportional salary increase than faculty whose salary is already at or near those of colleagues at our comparator institutions. This strategic targeting needs to be balanced of course with the need to pay new faculty at rates which makes their retention more likely.

 

I think a concerted effort on the part of the administration to address faculty salaries will go a long way in reinvigorating faculty governance. During this past spring’s university elections there was a remarkable lack of people putting their names forward as candidates for both university committees and the senate itself. As a result, we have a record number of vacancies that I will be attempting to fill in the coming weeks. There are any number of reasons why this may have occurred, however, I think the main one is a real or perceived lack of trust in the process of faculty governance. Part of this may be due to the sheer magnitude and complexity of issues that the administration and faculty leaders deal with throughout the course of the academic year. This can make it difficult for an individual serving on a committee or the senate to be as up to speed as required to make a truly informed decision on a particular issue. I think there are a number of short-term and longer-term solutions to this problem. A short-term solution for the senate is to simply reduce the number of issues we discuss at each meeting, but discuss them in much greater depth.

 

A longer-term solution is actually provided by the fact that we will hopefully be successful in our upcoming presidential search. The enabling legislation of the senate provides the opportunity for a new university president to revisit and revise the mechanism of faculty governance. And there are a number of faculty leaders who feel that we should take advantage of this opportunity to redefine the means by which faculty governance occurs. The ultimate goal of this would be to engage the new university president in a revised governance structure and, in the process, revitalize the contributions of the rest of the university community to the process of governance itself.

 

With this in mind, I thank you again for agreeing to serve on the senate and look forward to working with you in the coming year.

 

Presentation of the Wayne T. Westling Award for University Service and Leadership. President van Donkelaar asked Provost Jim Bean to present the 2008 Westling Award to recipient Jim Reinmuth, a member of the Lundquist College of Business faculty. Provost Bean indicated that he was thankful for the opportunity to learn about Wayne Westling since he did not know him personally. Clearly, Wayne Westling was one of the real heroes of service and governance, having served in the law school and at the UO from 1979-2000.

 

Turning his attention to Mr. Reinmuth, the provost noted that he has personally worked closely with Jim. Jim came to the university in 1967, and over the years he was a member of the faculty before he was in the administration, he won the Ersted distinguished teaching award in the 1970s, and then made Dean of the business school, a position he held for 18 years. In addition, he later served as vice president for academic affairs and development, setting up the first successful fundraising campaign. He also returned to OSU when their university foundation was in difficult mess; he took over, increased their giving by 40% in one year, and rebuilt the foundation. After that stint, Jim returned to his UO office and with the then associate dean for external affairs taking another job, Provost Bean had an “aha!” moment, involved Jim in fundraising for the business college again, and annual fundraising went from $4 to 10 million a year. Largely, such success was because Jim knows this business, and anyone who is anyone in Oregon knows Jim. His efforts have had a tremendous impact on the success of the business college, so with his unselfish service to the college, the university, and the university system, the provost expressed his belief that no one was more deserving of the Westling Award.

 

In response, Mr. Reinmuth made a few comments, saying that he knew Wayne and admired him for his calmness and commitment to service. He noted that some of the people in the room also were Westling Award recipients, and that it was his honor to be in their presence. Mr. Reinmuth said that this was his 41^st year at the UO and that he’s enjoyed every minute of it. He remarked that when he was a dean, many people complained about being an administrator, saying that it was kind of like shoveling snow in blizzard. To the contrary, he said he really enjoyed it. He thanked the members of the senate again for the honor of receiving the ward and said he was deeply indebted to them.

 

ADJOURNMENT

 

With no further business, the organizational meeting was adjourned at 4:15 p.m., followed by a welcoming reception honoring the new senators and Westling Award recipient.

 

 

Gwen Steigelman

Secretary of the Faculty

`