Minutes of the University Senate meeting Wednesday, March 11, 2009

 

Present: S. Chakraborty, L.-S. Chou, R. Colby, C. Ellis, A. Emami, D. Falk, L. Forest, P. Gilkey, C. Gray, M. Henney, E. Herman, J. Hunter, M. Jaeger, D. Levin, S. Libeskind, H. Lin, D. Miller, T. Minner, L.S. Morales, D. Olson, E. Peterson, J. Piger, S. Plummer, N. Rajabzadeh, , R. Rejaie, J. Rowell, T. Toadvine, N. Tublitz, P. van Donkelaar, , P. Walker

 

Excused: J. Hurwit, K. Lenn, L. Middlebrook, C. V. Moore, S. Paul, L. Vanderburgh

 

Absent: R. Illig, C. Jones, M. Latteri, C. McNelly, M. Myagkov, M. Redford, L. Stephen, A. Taylor

 

 

CALL TO ORDER

 

The regular meeting of the University Senate was called to order at 3:05 in 123 Pacific by University Senate President Paul van Donkelaar.

 

APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES

 

Minutes from the February 11, 2009 Senate meeting were approved as distributed. Chancellor George Pernsteiner made a few comments concerning the recent opportunities for members of the campus to meet presidential candidate Richard Lariviere. The chancellor asked that anyone with comments about Mr. Lariviere email (newpres@uoregon.edu) comments to the chancellor before noon on Thursday March 12^th so that he has time to review them and take them to the State Board of Higher Education at 8:00 am on Friday March 13^th when he makes his recommendation to the State Board at their regular monthly meeting. Senate President Paul van Donkelaar added that the Senate’s ad hoc committee on presidential assessment would provide their candidate assessment to the chancellor by Thursday as well.

 

STATE OF THE UNIVERSITY

 

Remarks form University President Dave Frohnmayer. The president opened his remarks by expressing his excitement that the campus had the opportunity to question and hear from a very distinguished presidential candidate, Mr. Lariviere. He thanked the members of the faculty, senate, administration, staff and students for their part in the search process. He commented that it has been a time for campus introspection and reaching out to a larger set of constituents, which yielded engagement with a sense of collegiality and a quality of inquiry that is suited to the university. The president noted that when a successor is designated, the transition process will begin, although in some ways it has already begun with Provost Bean, Vice President Michael Redding, and others involved in the process of providing briefing materials and books that will be well under way during the Spring Term. He added that it is a great advantage for a search process to likely conclude as early as this one will.

 

The president reported that The State Board of Higher Education met on March 6^th and approved a new degree in Latin American Studies, which was most welcomed and greeted with great enthusiasm. In a second matter, the state board approved a requested tuition surcharge, cushioned by 30% of it designated for student financial, necessary for the university to meet its fiscal obligations and to be prepared for what is anticipated to be a university record enrollment overall next fall. Mindful of the expense and concerns of our students, the president acknowledged the ASUO, who reduced student fees by $100 to make the total financial burden less. The state board understood the needed emergency tuition item.

 

Lastly, the president spoke briefly about the budget for the next biennium (2009-11). He noted that the budget situation is a moving target, with every state’s economy still in free fall, or at least absent the sort of certainly that allows for accurate predictions to arise. The president said he will be presenting the higher education budget case in early April and at Ways and Means Subcommittee hearings throughout the legislative session. The state legislature will not take any budget action until May or June, and because that time frame does not coincide with the academic calendar in terms of communication and review, the administration will do its best to communicate through electronic communications via the provost’s web page. On a closing note, the president indicated that the university leadership will be taking some salary cuts (several unpaid days each) to help with the budget issues facing the university for the balance of this fiscal year. A furlough or FTE reduction program is being formulated for others who may wish to participate. There will be more information about that possibility during spring term.

 

Updates on the library, Academic Plan, and budget from Provost Jim Bean. Provost Bean said that some rather significant cuts in the library budget were forestalled for a year or two by scraping together enough money, with help from the Department of Athletics, in order to take time to think more about the broader issues facing the library. Although yearly journal price increases of 9% are spiraling out of control, the real issue is the broader question of communication of scholarly work. Head Librarian and Dean Deb Carver and others are working with the provost to take a look at how the university is going to partner with other major research universities on this issue. The University of California at Berkeley is taking the lead in looking at different ways to support research and teaching functions of the university in the face of insurmountable costs. For example the UO and OSU libraries are looking at collaborating to concentrate on various sub-collections that would support both communities. Similarly, Dean Carver has set aside $50,000 of the her $300,000 budget subsidy to offset page charges for faculty who wish to begin publishing using the new “open source” publishing model for journal articles. (This is a relatively new movement where members of some high expense journal editorial boards have left there journals to form their own journals based on a business model that has authors pay a significant page charge for their articles, but that makes the journal available to libraries and other researchers at no cost. By setting aside page offset funds, the library is able to help our faculty cover those page charges if they choose to investigate these new avenues of scientific communication.) The provost indicated this issue will not be resolved quickly, but he is interested in pursuing various options as they become available.

 

Moving to the Academic Plan, the provost reported that the second draft of the plan is being revised with suggestions received, and the resulting third draft plan will be presented to the senate later in the year for ratification. He continued saying that the on-going development of the Big Idea proposals has generated an active discussion. The concentration will be on the intellectual investment of this part of the Academic Plan. There are more than 20 teams of faculty with proposals, many of which have been posted on the web for discussions (see bigideas@uoregon.edu). When the development period ends (March 15^th) a faculty committee will review the proposals and make recommendations to the president and the provost. The timeline is to know which proposals will be in the first phase focus by the middle of May. If things go well, the provost said he hopes to have the new president involved in these discussions as well as in the final version of the Academic Plan.

 

The provost then provided more detail about the budget situation alluded to earlier by President Frohnmayer. He said the university has a $8.6 million gap to cover for the remaining academic year. About $1.7 million had been taken care of earlier in the academic year; we expect about $2.1 million from the tuition increase that was just approved. That leaves about $5 million left to make up; about $2 million will come from sweeping all the fund balances in the provost’s areas and in Vice President Frances Dyke’s administration areas. The university would still be about $3 million short; options being considered to cover that amount include FTE reductions, both mandatory and voluntary (some possibilities for doing this will be available from the provost in April). In the mandatory phase, President Frohnmayer is taking 6 unpaid days off, the provost 5 days off, and others of leadership will take 3-4 unpaid days off each; about 20-30 people are involved in the first phase. In phase II, faculty and staff will be encouraged to participate, although the ways to do so are still being worked out legally. Employees working at .50 FTE cannot take the FTE reduction because it would negate their health care plan, which is not an option. The 3^rd Phase will be in the next fiscal year, but at this time there is not enough known to talk seriously about what would happen then.

 

The provost explained that the university expects state funding budget cuts during the next fiscal year to be somewhere in the order of $16 - 25 million. Using the appointment reduction plan, if everyone in the entire community took a one day furlough, it would be about $1 million dollars; if everyone were to take off one unpaid day a month (which has been some of the negotiation), it could mean approximately $12 million, which would be a big chunk of the total cut. This certainly is not ideal, since the faculty by and large is already underpaid by AAU counterpart standards. Provost Bean said there are a lot of issues to talk through about the complexity of FTE reductions, and it is not a firm decision at this point. He concluded his comments saying the he welcomes input on these issues, as does the Faculty Advisory Council, which has been discussing ways to tackle the budget shortfall and still survive.

 

During a question and answer period, several questions were clarified. Vice President Frances Dyke said that leave accruals would not be affected by taking a furlough day. President Frohnmayer noted that the tuition surcharge was for spring term only and did not affect graduate students. To a question about how using the open access format for publishing articles would affect tenure decisions, Provost Bean said the idea now is to enable those tenured faculty who are already doing this; but for untenured faculty, he suggested to continue publishing with traditional journals at this point. He noted that there are some faculty members that would like to push the edge of this envelope, and it benefits the entire academic community to enable them to do that.

 

REPORTS

 

Winter 2009 Preliminary Curriculum Report. Committee on Courses chairman Paul Engelking opened the floor for any corrections to the curriculum report. Ms. Lexy Wellman, CAS dean’s office, noted that on page 7 of the report, the text should read “global” environmental issues, not “international”. The secretary asked that the word “pending” be removed from approval of the new Latin American Studies degree (see Other Matters) since the State Board approved the degree at the March 6, 2009 meeting. Hearing no other changes or corrections, Senate President van Donkelaar brought the winter curriculum report to a voice vote, which was approved as amended (see http://www.uoregon.edu/~uosenate/dirsen089/CurRptW09Final.pdf for the final amended report).

 

Smoke-Free Campus Task Force Report. Mr. Gregg Lobisser, EMU, provided an overview of the Smoke-Free Campus Task Force that was charged by Vice President Frances Dyke to review, research, and analyze the pros and cons, including costs, of establishing a smoke free campus. He indicated that people feel strongly about the issue on both sides. The basic recommendation from the task force is to have the campus go smoke-free by fall 2010, which would provide ample time to prepare for the change. In addition, there were several other recommended steps for implementation, including: appointment of a full-time project coordinator for a period of 2 years, establish an implementation committee, prepare a communication and education plan, and increase smoking cessation support. Mr. Lobisser noted that the report is a lengthy one with much detail, and can be found posted on the web at http://www.uoregon.edu/~uosenate/dirsen089/smoke-freereport.pdf.

 

Mr. Lobisser next explained the process the task force used, which included studying the Environmental Issues Committee’s sub-committee on tobacco smoke report of 2006, engaging new prospective students and their parents, conducting a survey of opinions among faculty, staff and students, and holding open forums on the topic. The overwhelming number of people who expressed their opinion about going smoke-free as a campus were in favor of it. Those individuals who were opposed to going smoke free generally cited two issues: the infringement of a personal right to chose to smoke or not, and the enforceability of a smoke free policy. The task force also conducted telephone interviews with smoke free institutions to get a sense of what they experienced when they went smoke free. (There are 200 some institutions nationwide that are smoke free). The interviews indicated no adverse effects were reported on faculty or staff, no adverse effects on student recruitment or admissions to the institution, and no consequential effects of enforcement in regards to the campus going smoke free. Mr. Lobisser said that the task force also looked at health effects of second hand smoke, current campus polices, City of Eugene policies, the SEIU contract (for classified employees), and interviewed several campus entities such as public safety and environmental health and safety and organizations that may have concerns about going smoke free.

 

The issue of a smoke free campus versus having designated smoking stations is a challenging one for many institutions. Those institutions that have gone with designated smoking areas among our peer institutions found that they were quite problematic in many cases, and Mr. Lobisser acknowledged the difficulties that may emerge with enforcement issues. The task force felt that with a good education program, over a period of 3-5 years voluntary compliance would come relatively quickly. He also noted that the task force recommended going smoke free, not tobacco free; its thinking was aligned with protecting individuals who chose not to smoke to be free of the hazards of second hand smoke. Lastly, Mr. Lobisser stated that there are a number of issues that have to be considered in implementing a smoke-free campus policy, such as being cognizant of the neighbors on the campus boundaries, how to define campus boundaries (that is, the Portland campus, the Bend observatory, the marine biology institute at Charleston, OR, and so forth), and how a smoke-free policy would be communicated to new and prospective students, for example.

 

Before a discussion period commenced, President van Donkelaar clarified that the task force’s recommendation would not be voted on during the current senate meeting, but would be delayed to afford more time for senators to talk with their constituent groups. With the floor opened up for discussion of the task force report, Vice President Gilkey commented that there was precedence for going smoke-free on campus: at the university’s first Student Conduct Committee meeting on September 11, 1882, one of the policies adopted was that there be not use of tobacco in any way or form on the college campus. As the discussion proceeded, a number of issues were raised that centered on why the ban was limited to tobacco smoke (and automobile exhaust, for example, or fragrances), whether the current policy (no smoking in buildings) was working, whether satellite campuses and facilities are included, the effect on individual employees who are addicted to smoking, problems of leaving campus dormitories and go off campus at night to smoke, what the cost would be to implement the policy during such tight financial times, and would there be a cost savings benefit (health care benefits costs reduced) if the campus was smoke-free . Some senators pointed out that going smoke-free might be incentive for individuals to quit smoking.

 

To the suggestion that voting on the motion be delayed until the university was clear of the current financial crisis, President van Donkelaar commented that since the smoke-free issue is being talked about now, perhaps it would be better to make a decision about it now; but keeping in mind the economic downturn and the cost that would associate with implementation, if the motion passes it might be implemented at some future time when the costs are more manageable. Mr. Lobisser added that the task force group is in the process of trying to get some facts regarding the financial impact of a smoke-free policy which will take some time and dialogue because there is more than one strategy to addressing each of the recommended steps.

 

The discussion wound down with a number of issues still unanswered, but a sense that senators wanted to have more time for feedback from their constituent groups. President von Donkelaar brought the discussion to a close by saying that a vote on the task force’s recommendation will be taken at the next senate meeting, and if there is a lot of feedback, he would call a Town Hall meeting for further discussion.

 

Interinstitutional Faculty Senate (IFS) Report. Senate Vice-President Peter Gilkey, who serves as the IFS representative as well, reported that enrollment across most OUS institutions appears to be up. However, he noted that there is a significant underutilized capacity at both Eastern Oregon and Southern Oregon University. Vice President Gilkey also reported that Senate Bill 442, which addresses the possibility of merging Southern Oregon with the University of Oregon, has been proposed and is not very popular with either Southern or the UO. The UO is developing a memorandum of understanding between SOU and the UO that would shift some of our prospective applicants to SOU with the possibility of them returning to the UO after the first two years’ work is completed. Given the current fiscal and political climate, Vice President Gilkey felt that while the merger idea is a bad one, the collaborative agreement is partially good for Southern and the University of Oregon, and also shows the legislature that the two universities are acting in good faith.

 

Mr. Gilkey reported further on several matters before the State Board. First, the new degree program in Latin American Studies will be the last to go forward from the State Board until the fiscal situation becomes steadier. Second, a study looking at the dual credit programs (where a student in high school receives credit for college courses as well as high school courses) seems to be working well; after a careful analysis, the study group located no problems. Third, there are continuing discussions on learning outcomes; on our campus, Associate Vice Provost Ken Doxsee is the point person. Fourth, questions about the semester system was brought up, and based on sidebar conversations, Mr. Gilkey said he felt that it is very likely there will be a serious conversation about going to the semester system. Also brought up was the question about minimal enrollment in undergraduate courses. He opined that in bad times rather than receiving funding from the state legislature, they attempt to cut through thoughtful university procedures and mandate various things, sometimes with a result of unintended consequences. Lastly, Mr. Gilkey said he gave a homily preaching on the campus’ fund balances, suggesting that they are not simply the saving accounts which can be swept up, but to a large extent they represent future financial commitments, like those at WOU that are there to pay for their guaranteed tuition into the future. Mr. Gilkey concluded his report saying that it was not a cheerful meeting with the State Board and the financial forecast is much the same.

 

During a brief discussion period, Mr. Gilkey clarified to Mr. Paul Engelking, chemistry, that indeed, conversation regarding a move to semesters is serious, and chances are very strong that over the next two years we will be changing to semesters. Regarding the enrollment floor issue, Provost Bean commented that the Provosts’ Council is talking about a statement that undergraduate courses cannot be offered with enrollment under 10 students without the Provost’s approval. Low enrollments in some of the regional universities are problematic, more so than at the UO. He indicated that most of the low enrollment issues will be taken care of. President Frohnmayer commented further about a possible merger with SOU saying that we enjoy a good relationship with the administration at Southern and have discussed this and other related possibilities for many years. It is not our desire to see a merger. It is our desire to have normal relationships with them seeking opportunity between the two institutions and the day-to-day of the economies of each. Mr. Gilkey also presented a written report http://www.uoregon.edu/~uosenate/dirsen089/IFS-Report-7Mar09.pdf

 

Internal Governance Update. Senate President van Donkelaar reported that with his active involvement on the presidential search committee and on key performance and Big Ideas groups, he has not made much progress on looking into revision of internal governance. He indicated that he will be engaging the new university president during spring term, but that he doubts we will be able to set up revised internal governance by the end of this academic year; it will likely carry over to the fall term. He commented that he does not believe the slight delay is necessarily bad because there are a number of issues associated with governance that will require a lot of discussion. President Frohnmayer then added a reminder that the university is governed by the internal management directive that requires that a new president adopt a form of internal governance for the university and faculty. The next president must take some action to develop an engagement with members of the campus to change the system that might be recommended to the new president. The board is quite clear on this, so it will climb to the top of the university agenda whether we wish for it to or not.

 

Mr. Frank Stahl, emeritus biology, stated that it is important that faculty be up to speed on the nature of faculty governance so that they can bring ideas of governance to the new president. President van Donkelaar remarked that he has started working on the idea of an opinion survey to go to the statutory faculty. An option might be to have a town hall meeting to educate and have some exchange of information that would allow people to take the survey.

 

Conflict of Interest (COI) Committee Report. COI chairman John Bonine, law, was unable to be at the meeting and Vice President for Research Rich Linton filled in for him. He said that progress is continuing on the policy draft and that a recommendation to the senate will be made to vote on at the April meeting. The relevant proposed COI policy documents will be posted on the web for review by the end of spring break. Vice President Linton added that there will be more processes to deal with related to OUS directives, especially related to procurement issues. Lastly, the conflict of commitment topic will be examined more extensively during spring term.

 

ANNOUNCEMENTS AND COMMUNICATION FROM THE FLOOR

 

Ms. Gina Psaki announced that she, Andrew Markus, and Mark Watson comprise a committee appointed to review the performance of the Dean of Libraries, Deb Carver, as part of the regular performance review pattern for administrators. She quickly reviewed the process, which included gathering information from a number of library stakeholders. The committee asked for letters from external reviewers, including libraries, peer institutions, donors, and collaborators, as well as internal letters from UO faculty, administrators, and students who are informed about the library. The committee has spoken at large group meetings at the library, classified staff, with library faculty, and the Library Council, as well as individual interviews with about 20 members of the library. She indicated that the committee is now asking the Senate to take part in a survey that will go out to a lot of people: library personal, library reps from various departments, and the University Library Committee members. The survey is confidential; only personnel in the Provost office will see the replies. Committee members will see summaries of data and responses but nothing that can identify the sources of the feedback.

 

Ms. Psaki continued that the survey is organized around many categories, as the Dean of Libraries is a large job. It includes leadership, vision and administration of the budget and administration of the collections, personnel management, the library’s role in the teaching and research mission, and external relations. There also is a space for other comments. The survey will be conducted on-line. Dean Carver will be giving a public presentation to the campus to which everyone is invited, on Monday April 20^th from 9:00-10:00 a.m. in the Knight Library Browsing Room.

 

ASUO Update. Senator Cassandra Gray, ASUO, informed the senators of some activities of the Student Senate in passing academic resolutions that comment on the provosts’ Academic Plan, in particular, but also other areas regarding building diversity on campus, retaining students of color, and encouraging women students to participate in majors such as mathematics, the sciences, and business where they are underrepresented. The Student Senate’s economic resolution declared support from the Academic Mission leaders of the university, and they endorsed the University Senates’s motion concerning the moving of the 2010 commencement date to accommodate the NCAA Track and Field Championships. Regarding the Academic Plan, the Student Senate was pleased to have an opportunity to weigh in on various aspects of the plan and communicated their ideas to the Provost. Senator Gray noted that the various documents are available on the University Senate website (see http://www.uoregon.edu/~uosenate/dirsen089/letters089.html).

 

NEW BUSINESS

 

Both motions on the agenda for the March 11 meeting were postponed until the April 8, 2009 senate meeting to provide more time for senators and their constituents to read and study the motions. (See http://www.uoregon.edu/~uosenate/dirsen089/US089-5.html for the motion concerning conflict of interest policy and procedures, and http://www.uoregon.edu/~uosenate/dirsen089/US089-6.html for the motion concerning recommendations for a smoke-free campus.)

 

ADJOURNMENT

 

With no other business at hand, Vice President Peter Gilkey moved to adjourn. The motion was seconded and the meeting was adjourned by voice vote at 4:45 p.m.

 

 

Gwen Steigelman

Secretary of the Faculty