Minutes of the University Senate meeting February 11, 2009

 

 

Present: C. Bengtson, J. Bonine, C. Cherry, A. Emami, D. Falk, L. Forest, P. Gilkey, C. Gray, E. Herman, J. Hunter, M. Jaeger, C. Jones, M. Latteri, K. Lenn, S. Libeskind, H. Lin, C. McNelly, T. Minner, D. Olson, S. Paul, E. Peterson, S. Plummer, M. Redford, T. Toadvine, N. Tublitz, P. van Donkelaar

 

Excused: L.-S. Chou, J. Hurwit, D. Levin, L. Middlebrook, C. V. Moore, L. Vanderburgh

 

Absent: R. Colby, C. Ellis, S. Giacomelli, R. Illig, M. Henney, L.S. Morales, M. Myagkov, J. Piger, N. Rajabzadeh, R. Rejaie, J. Rpwell, L. Stephen, A. Taylor, P. Walker

 

 

CALL TO ORDER

 

The regular meeting of the University Senate was call to order at 3:06 p.m. in 123 Pacific by University Senate President Paul van Donkelaar.

 

APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES

 

Minutes from the January 14, 2009 senate meeting were approved as distributed.

 

STATE OF THE UNIVERSITY

 

University Presidential Search Update. OUS Chancellor George Pernsteiner reported that the search committee has begun discussions with individual candidates. He noted he had spoken with the Senate Ad Hoc Presidential Assessment Committee. The chancellor said that the search committee is moving ahead and expects to meet its deadline for having a new president appointed by April. Senator Nathan Tublitz, biology, referred to the open presidential search that Eastern Oregon University is conducting and asked if it was likely that the names of the final “short list” of candidates for the UO presidential position would be released. The chancellor reiterated his statement from previous meetings saying that he would ask the final candidates if they would agree to release their names publicly; if all are willing to do so, the names would be released, but if any one finalist did not want his/her name released, then no names would be released.

 

Budget Update. Vice President of Finance and Administration Frances Dyke reported what was known regarding the state’s budget situation and how it might affect the university. She indicated that, unfortunately, any money from the state or for infrastructure in education is still in doubt. The magnitude of financial crisis is unprecedented – and impacts all our institutions including Oregon, K-12, and higher education throughout the nation. It is difficult to know now just when there might be a turn around. The fiscal recovery, perhaps by spring of 2010, is predicted to be a very slow one. With ever increasing unemployment rates, tax revenues will be down. The vice president noted that the next economic forecast is due in May and is again expected to be unfavorable. The university was assessed $1.7 million in January, and expects to be assessed another $4 million for rest of this fiscal year (through June 30, 2009), which will likely be made up from cash reserves. The university will be in a very fragile position for the next biennium. The estimates for cuts in next year’s state appropriations range between 15% and a 30%, which is $12 - 24 million for the university. The provost has asked deans and vice presidents to look at a 10% cut initially, and there will be some more messages from the provost regarding how to begin thinking about the financial impact of the expected cuts. Mitigation from the federal stimulus package will be less than what was hoped for, but there is $2.9 million for deferred maintenance projects, such as health and safety upgrade projects (sprinklers in Pacific Hall, replacing transformers, sidewalk replacements, exterior maintenance, etc.) that must, by federal rule, be outsourced to create jobs in the local private sector on contracts that are issued by April 1^st with completion by December 1^st.

 

The vice president commented that management of the fiscal challenges facing the university will occur through making prudent and appropriate actions with the fundamental goal of protecting the academic core of the university and people as much as possible. In addition to the Senate Budget Committee and the Faculty Advisory Council, the provost has created an ad hoc advisory budget planning group consisting of the provost, vice presidents Frances Dyke, Robin Holmes, and Michael Redding, Deans Scott Coltrane and Tim Gleason, professors Peter Keyes and Barbara Altman, and Shelly Elliot to help with strategic fiscal decisions. Ms. Dyke indicated that the university knows best how to manage its financial challenges and does not want to have its hands tied by the legislature.

 

During a discussion period, Senate President van Donkelaar asked at what threshold would the university have to begin making vertical cuts as opposed to horizontal cuts. Ms, Dyke replied that the provost has said he believes there is a qualitative difference with an 8% cut, but those decisions have not yet been made. President Dave Frohnmayer added that we do not yet know what the tuition revenue will be; levels may be set differentially for non-resident and resident students. He noted that it is good to have an increasing enrollment in these circumstances. He noted, too, that the UO is slightly above winter term enrollments compared with last year, and the applicant pool of students for next year is slightly higher than last year’s record application pool. Every school in the system shows enrollment growth. The UO is targeting a fall 2009 enrollment of 3,900 new students compared with 4,100 this past fall term.

 

Senator Huaxin Lin, mathematics, asked how the budget cuts would affect library holdings, and in turn, research, saying that massive library cuts would seriously impact the mathematics department. The provost replied that the university is using some one-time funding to get through the short term problem; most people recognize that the current system of library acquisitions is not sustainable in that we cannot continue to purchase content that inflates at 7%- 9% per year. The broader concern on campus is to shape alternative approaches to scholarly communication.

 

Senator Tublitz asked what would happen if the university is asked, for the upcoming biennium, to give back to the state more than the university has to give – can or will the OUS help. Chancellor Pernsteiner replied that he has had conversations with the chairs of the legislature’s Ways and Means Committees. Although no one knows just how much the revenue will fall in this fiscal year, each of the OUS campuses has some fund balances. If the system winds up with an extra 4% cut, there should be enough in the accounts system wide to absorb that level of cut. The legislature has not suggested that the cut would be deeper than 4% for this year. The chancellor said that the system has some flexibility, but much of that money is committed, so the system has suggested to the legislature that at some time there should be a discussion of using the $200 million educational stability fund (for K-12, community colleges, and universities) for the next biennium.

 

Another remaining question is the federal stimulus money, and we do not know how that will play out, as money for states or for education. If education funds are received in the current fiscal year, they are more valuable, and there is a desire not to have K-12 schools close the school year early. The chancellor continued that as we go into the next biennium, the system will look at the kinds of reductions needed, balanced with how much general fund and tuition there will be. It’s likely that tuition increases will be higher than 3.6%, but to keep tuition affordable for Oregonians, the system would make 30% of any increase available for need-based financial aid. He added that it is important to keep enrollments up, indicating that if a student drops out, the campus loses more money than what was received through state funding. The chancellor noted, too, that remaining fund balances are not distributed evenly throughout the system and that the UO’s balances are somewhat lower. He said that the State Board will have to look at all alternatives. President Frohnmayer added that budget information moves very quickly in the legislature and negotiations regarding budget cuts sometime occur within 48 hours notice. He noted that the legislature intends to adjourn in June, and another economic forecast occurs in mid-May, so the UO may not know the full extent of cuts until mid-June. The new fiscal budget will be know in July, so some decision will need to be made over the summer months. He said there will be faculty consultation via the SBC, FAC and the ad hoc budget planning committee.

 

REPORTS

 

Update on the Conflict of Interest (COI) Policy development. President van Donkelaar noted that Senate Vice President Peter Gilkey had stepped down from the COI/COC committee due to other system-wide governance obligations and that Senator John Bonine, law, would chair the committee and provide an update on the committee’s activities. Further, after some discussion regarding separating conflict of commitment from conflict of interest policy development, the two topical areas will be worked on by distinct groups, with the conflict of commitment group stepping back to investigate the issue over a longer time frame than the original May 2009 report deadline.

 

Senator Bonine explained that the COI committee has an informational web page (see http://www.uoregon.edu/~uosenate/dirsen089/COICOCC.html) and the committee’s listserv for communicating the committee’s progress. He indicated that the committee could find no federal or state legislation that requires annual disclosure of conflict of interest for every faculty member; rather, these are policy matters. The committee is currently considering a list of “big issues” related to the conflict of interest topic and plans on having policy ready for adoption by the March 12^th senate meeting. Accordingly, the COI committee is looking toward developing a form to file only for those people who are involved with funded research.

 

Campus Planning Committee report. Ms. Carol Daly, senior director of development leadership gifts in the advancement office, reported that the Campus Planning Committee is comprised of faculty, staff, and administrative representatives whose duties are to review proposed development to ensure that it meets campus plan policies, to serve on project user groups and architect selection committees, and to review policy issues related to development and transportation. The committee is advisory to the president. During 2007-08 the committee met 15 times and made 18 planning recommendations, including those related to the addition to the Museum of Natural and Cultural History, the new baseball stadium, the solar awning test site on Onyx Bridge, the campus heritage landscape plan, and other related campus plan amendments. In 2008-09 the committee’s efforts are focused on Phase II of the Integrated Science Complex and the Strategic Housing Plan.

 

Ms. Daly commented on several steps and policies that come into consideration in planning before a project is fully funded. These involve user groups and architects, preserving open spaces and being aware of campus “edges”, being aware of the 7 minutes “walking circles”, and planning with consideration of architectural style and historic preservation. (For more information about the planning committees activities and projects, see http://www.uoregon.edu/~uplan/index.html).

 

Residential Campus Plan Update. Vice President for Student Affairs Robin Holmes provided information regarding plans for building new residence halls and renovating current buildings. She indicated that a new residence hall building is planned for the Bean Complex parking lot area, bordering 15^th and Moss streets. The new residence is expected to cost between $55 to 70 million, with the funding to retire construction bonds to come from room and board fees. The residence hall would house approximately 450-500 students in traditional double and also suites. Ms. Holmes said the university plans to build a variety of living spaces that will be more spacious than current room types. The building will have space not only for freshmen, but for sophomores through seniors, as well. She continued that the new residence halls will provide a variety of public spaces and local purposes rooms that facilitate creation of community and allows for establishing linkages between classroom learning and residential life. The new East Resident Hall is scheduled for opening fall 2012.

 

In addition to Vice President Holmes’ comments, Mr. Gregg Lobisser, EMU director of student activities and chair of the Campus Planning Committee for 2008-09, provided a proposed phased future resident hall renovation and construction plan sequence as follows: fall 2015, replace/renovate Hamilton; fall 2018, replace Walton; fall 2021 replace/renovate Bean Residence Hall; fall 2024-25, build two additional new residence halls in the east campus area. The plan assumes that enrollment will stay strong; that is, that the university holds current occupancy rates while it take facilities off-line for renovation/replacement. The plan pushes the residence halls to the edge of campus and increases capacity with the goal of having 25% of students – not just freshmen – living on campus.

 

During a question period, Mr. Lobisser clarified that the Bean parking lot site will not use the entire area; 25% of the site will be maintained as open space, and there will be room for another building perhaps 10 to 15 years in the future. The new building is planned to be in approximately the same price range as current residential space, and the planned facility would be 4 or 5 floors high. He noted too, that the university is working closely with the neighbors in that area as the plans take shape. To a question about the bonding capacity, Vice President Dyke explained that the university anticipated that it would be building a residence hall and it has bonding capacity for it. She added that the university would jettison other projects before this one to stay within the 7% limit. To a question regarding whether the housing projects would pay for themselves, the response was that housing is an auxiliary function and all housing operations are funded by rents received; any new building has to be self-supporting, but each individual building does not have to stand on its own since housing operates as a system.

 

Mac Court Update. Christine Thompson, planning office, delivered the report of the provost-appointed Future of Mac Court Committee in place of committee chairman Robert Melnick, landscape architecture, who was unable to attend the meeting The committee was charged with identifying and assessing potential future options for McArthur Court and the immediate surrounding area, including adaptive reuse or demolition, as long as those potential needs serve the needs of the university’s academic mission aligned with campus priorities, and responds to the area’s opportunities and constraints (see http://uplan.uoregon.edu/mac_court/ for a draft report and criteria for determining future use). From the building perspective, there are a range of options: preservation, which means taking the building as intact and using it as is (that is very unlikely); adaptive reuse (preferred by the committee); and lastly, demolition and redevelopment.

 

The primary criteria that will be used to determine future use are that it must serve the academic mission, and it must be a good fit for the location. If these first two criteria are met, then further criteria (items 3-7 in the draft report) will be addressed. Ms. Thompson commented that the focus is on the interior uniqueness of the space and what (if anything) should be preserved, and how the building fits in with campus primary buildings. The committee’s next steps are to gather feedback from the draft report, make revisions, establish a set of potential uses, and finally submit the committee’s report to provost and president.

 

Interinstitutional Faculty Senate (IFS) report. IFS representative and President Peter Gilkey, mathematics provided an informational handout from state board meetings and requested input from faculty for good ideas on doing more with less under the difficult fiscal conditions, and reinventing higher education.

 

Internal faculty governance update. Senate President van Donkelaar reported that he and President Frohnmayer are developing a letter regarding faculty governance. President van Donkelaar indicated that he formed a small committee to look at faculty governance and the committee is moving ahead. Lastly, the president said that an opinion survey on faculty governance was being formulated to be sent out to the statutory faculty.

 

ANNOUNCEMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE FLOOR

 

Notice of motion was given by Senate Vice President Gilkey concerning: a smoke free campus; executive salaries; and conflict of interest policy.

 

NEW BUSINESS

 

Motion US08/09-4 requesting data collection on the effects of moving the date of graduation to accommodate the NCAA Track and Field Championships. Senator Lisa Redford, linguistics, brought the motion to the floor as follows:

 

Preamble: The recent decision to move the 2010 Commencement to the weekend prior to final exams to avoid the conflict with the NCAA Track & Field Championships has potential consequences on student exam performance as well as on students' ability to host family and friends during commencement. While there are a variety of opinions both for and against this decision, there is no clear data as to whether it will have a negative impact on students' educational experience.

 

Whereas, clear qualitative and quantitative data is beneficial in contributing to decisions around the academic/athletic balance, and

 

Whereas, such decisions are likely to be required in the future,

 

Be it moved that,

 

The Senate respectfully requests that the central administration openly and clearly collect and report data associated with student performance during years where exams are held prior to commencement to be compared against the one or more years when they are to be held after. In addition, the Senate respectfully requests that the central administration collect and report baseline survey data on student and family perception and satisfaction with the 2009 Commencement to be compared with similar data to be collected during the 2010 Commencement and beyond.

 

During the debate of the motion, an ASUO senator asked whether other institutions have changed their graduation schedule to accommodate a major athletic event (Note: in this case, the UO will move graduation ceremonies to the weekend before final examinations in 2010 due to the campus hosting the NCAA Track and Field Championships the same weekend, raising the possibility of there not being enough hotel accommodations for both events). In reply, Ms. Redford indicated that she did not know. She commented that there had been discussion about extending the graduation ceremonies to the weekend following the track meet, but that there were issues with faculty who are on 9-month contracts who would not be available to participate. President Frohnmayer said that other universities have moved the graduation date to a time before final exams – he explained that it was not unusual to distribute diploma covers at the event and then send diplomas at a later time once graduation requirements are verified. He added that the administration has no objection to the motion; it would be useful to have evidence. Regarding the cost of the data collection, he opined that the price would depend on the nature of the survey, but given the tenuous fiscal circumstance currently, it would not be prudent to expend especially large amount of money for the survey. President Frohnmayer said that it is the administration’s view that much of the evidence would be impressionistic and anecdotal, yet systematically collected.

 

A number of issues were raise during the discussion, such as what percentage of students are failed at the university, what the barometer for student performance would be, how many years of data would be collected, whether both undergraduate and graduate students be included, who would interpret the results, and how the information would be reported. The discussion seemed to split between those who believed any data collected would not be particularly useful (for a variety of reasons, such as attendance at graduation ebbs and flows over the years), and those who thought the data collection concept was useful and should be pursued (noting that there are bound to be future scheduling conflicts with athletic events and the academic calenda,r and the information would be helpful).

 

There was concern expressed regarding how the survey would be conducted, that survey participants be asked questions reflecting qualitatively if they were satisfied with the graduation experience; it would be important for resulting decisions to be data driven and not purely anecdotal. President Frohnmayer suggested that data include two parts: the viability of formal commencement itself, and if student performance is affected. He noted that the UO has one of the latest commencement dates in the nation due to our use of the quarter system (instead of semesters). If the university changed to a semester system in the future, the graduation date conflict would not be an issue. Mr. Ken Doxie added his support the motion, saying that there is definitional work to do before actual surveying, but the data could be very interesting. He noted that departmental commencements have been very well attended over the years, so perhaps these should be part of the survey as well.

 

With discussion winding down, President van Donkelaar put motion US08/09-4 to a voice vote. Hearing similar responses on both sides of the question, a hand vote was taken which resulted in 9 in favor, 7 opposed, and 2 abstentions. Motion US08/09 - 4 to collect data on the effects of moving the date of graduation to accommodate the NCAA Track and Field Championships was passed.

 

ADJOURNMENT

 

With no other business at hand, the meeting was adjourned at 4:46 p.m.

 

 

Gwen Steigelman

Secretary of the Faculty