Minutes of the University Senate Meeting November 12, 2008

 

 

Present: A. Emami, D. Falk, E. Herman, J. Hunter, J. Hurwit, M. Jaeger, C. Jones, K. Lenn, D. Levin, S. Libeskind, H. Lin, C. McNelly, D. Miller, D. Olson, E. Peterson, S. Plummer, R. Rejaie, M. Redford, L. Stephen, N. Tublitz, P. van Donkelaar,

 

Excused: C. Bengtson, L-S Chou, P. Gilkey, L. Middlebrook, C. Moore, S. Paul, T. Toadvine, L. Vanderburgh

 

Absent: N. Butto, C. Ellis, M. Henney, R. Illig, J. Rowell, T. Analisa,

 

 

CALLED TO ORDER

 

The regular meeting of the University Senate was called to order at 3:07 p.m. in 110 Fenton by University Senate President Paul van Donkelaar.

 

 

APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES

 

Minutes of the October 8, 2008 meeting were approved as distributed.

 

 

STATE OF THE UNIVERSITY

 

UO Presidential search update. Senate President van Donkelaar introduced OUS Chancellor George Pernsteiner who reported the Presidential Search Committee continues to actively seek candidates for the position. He commented that the quality of the application pool to date is quite high and there are good candidates -- the search committee has started to review and research their files. The chancellor noted that the committee is meeting regularly, and that he is pleased with not only the candidate pool but progress made so far.

 

President van Donkelaar followed the chancellor’s comments by noting that he had received notice of a motion to create a UO senate ad hoc presidential search committee whose goal is to provide input on the final candidates for the university president position (see new business item later in these minutes). The hope is that the final candidate(s) will agree to open the search process and make their names public so that a senate committee can widen the review and provide recommendations for appointment to the Presidential Search Committee.

 

Conflict of Interest and Conflict of Commitment policies update. Vice President for Research and Dean of the Graduate School Rich Linton began his remarks by thanking Lynnette Schenkel and Meg Rowles, both in the Office for Responsible Conduct of Research, for their work and efforts on these issues. He explained that conflict of interest focuses individual faculty members who have financial interest may conflict in some fashion with their duties as a University of Oregon public employee. For example, for faculty who receive research funding from an external private entity in which he or she may have a personal financial stake in the entity, there may be a potential of compromising the integrity of their research, thus it needs to be effective disclosed and managed. The key point Vice President Linton made is that conflicts by nature exist at the interface of public universities and private sector interests and the role is to manage them effectively. Regarding conflict of commitment, that focuses primarily on commitment of time, when a faculty or staff member is working full time within the university and at the same time working with a private entity external to the university. He gave as an example a faculty member who is a full time clinical psychologist but at the same time has a private counseling practice outside the university and wants to spend considerable time (perhaps a couple days a week) devoted to that outside activity. The issue is how do we manage this conflict of a university appointment and an external activity? In this arena this conflicts exists in the research sponsored research domain, and also extend to personnel issues and contracts concerns, the latter of which is handled through Senior Vice Provost Russ Tomlin’s office in Academic Affairs.

 

The vice president went on to explain that the conflict of interests and commitment polices are not new – conflict of interest policies have been in place since the early 1990s. It is a critical policy that allows the UO to effectively engage the community and society, that is, it provides the framework to allow faculty and staff to provide expertise in a broader context. Another key point is that such policies are a fundamental legal requirement. There is a mix of Internal Management Directives from OUS, Oregon statutes, and a wide range of federal agency policies to which the UO must adhere. In other words, not having such policies is not an option. Vice President Linton continued that for the past several years the research offices as well as the deans and academic affairs have been working to update and revise the conflict of interest/commitment guidelines and policies, and they are now ready to roll out the newly revised policies. The vice president noted that when the university underwent an internal audit recently, a uniform requirement came out of the review saying that institutions have to have a mandatory disclosure process on an annual basis. Previous policy said that when a faculty member had something to disclose, there was an expectation from the university that the faculty member would disclose it. Starting in calendar year 2009, there will be a mandatory disclosure from every faculty member and relevant staff to make an annual disclosure. He explained that there would be disclosure forms, a short version and a longer one. On the short form there will be four questions, and if answered “no” to each, the disclosure is complete. It can be submitted electronically with an electronic signature. If there are “yes” answers to any of the four questions, there is a subset of further questions relevant to the topic of the question. The electronic form is an attempt to streamline the process while still capturing the necessary information to meet regulatory requirements.

 

Once the disclosures are submitted, the Office of Responsible Conduct of Research will review and screen all of the disclosures, and depending on the complexity of issues raised, there will be different levels of institutional review and oversight. In more complicated cases, a committee will be formed to provide recommendations back to the Offices of Research and of Academic Affairs to help with the management plan for the conflict. Vice President Linton said that the new policies have been pilot tested over the past few months with the College of Education, so there has been considerable faculty engagement in the process. The vice president then turned to Vice Provost Russ Tomlin to speak briefly regarding the conflict of commitment policy.

 

Vice Provost Tomlin pointed out that neither of the policies is aimed at curtailing faculty activities, or at hyper analyzing faculty routines. He noted that typical activities such as speaking at professional conferences and receiving honoraria likely would not rise to the level of a conflict, which would be apparent in answering the four questions asked on the disclosure form. But being paid to speak at other universities would likely be a disclosure issue. He continued that when there is interplay between large scale commitments of faculty members’ time and an outside commitment, there is a potential for an imbalance of commitment. Often, these imbalances of effort are handled by the department head and the faculty member. If there is more complexity involved, then the Office of Academic Affairs may be involved to help manage the conflict. The understanding is that if a faculty member is appointed at 1.0 FTE, then the commitment to the university to accomplish the expectations of teaching and research would be 100%. If the outside commitment results in not contributing to appropriate research and teaching criteria, it may be a conflict of commitment. The disclosure process protects the faculty member from more awkward moments that might arise; for example, asking graduate students to work on an outside enterprise that they may not want to do, but agree to do for fear of jeopardizing their relationship with the graduate faculty member. The disclosure protects students from being forced to do something they do not want to do, and protect the faculty member from being accused of coercion. The primary purpose of disclosing conflict of commitment is to have a means to manage disclosed conflicts and protect ourselves. He noted that the Faculty Advisory Council also has reviewed the policy. Lastly, Vice Provost Tomlin suggested that faculty members visit the website of the Office of Responsible Conduct of Research to view the policies (see orcr.uoregon.edu).

 

During a discussion period, Mr. Gordon Sayre, English, asked how the review committee would be appointed, and whether it would be an appeal committee. Vice President Linton replied that the committee would be comprised of faculty appointees with a direct report to the Office of Research and Provost’s Office. The committee would review specific cases where there is a complex conflict issue and would make recommendations to translate the disclosure into a recommended set of management steps around the conflict. He added that the committee could be a conduit of information (policies, protocols, issues of implementation, and so forth) to the senate. Mr. John Chalmers, business, asked if the disclosure would be part of the annual faculty report or part of other general reports. Vice Provost Tomlin replied that there is large variability around how different colleges and schools gather year end information from faculty members. For example, in the business college there is software used to gather data and there will be a discussion with the academic deans on merits of the software strategy to minimize the way the process would be handled. The business college ahs already adopted such software; others have different means in place. Vice President Linton added that there will be both electronic and hard copy information about the disclosure process going out to the faculty. Mandatory disclosure is mainstream; most institutions have such requirements across the country, and the UO policy is very much the same policy as is found in similar institutions.

 

Another question was raised regarding staff disclosures. Vice Provost Tomlin explained that some officers of administration are engaged in management programs or other high order relationships in the academic enterprise and/or outside activities they would require that they, too, must disclose any conflicts. Whether such disclosures will need to be made by all employees or by stratified layers of employees based on the type of job they have is yet to be determined. Vice President Linton added that conflicts of interest and conflict of commitment are often entangled by their very nature. Part of the revised policy approach at the UO is to couple these issues together in one disclosure form that addresses both areas. Mr. Chris Jones, AAA, commented that the policy seems to have ambiguity when it comes to mentioning faculty and other UO employees. He asked that it be made clearer whether teaching faculty or other employees are being addressed. Vice provost Tomlin asked Mr. Jones to send him an email on the question with more specific information so that it could be answered directly.

 

Senator Nathan Tublitz, biology, asked about the rational for policing the policy, wondering if there have been many serious incidents requiring more attention to these issues. Mr. Tomlin replied that the impetuous is coming from external sources in part as a result of the audit; it is not a matter of how many or few incidents there are. Also, with the UO’s research external funding crossing the $100 million mark, it opens new levels of federal scrutiny. Mr. Linton noted that the major institutional concern is about chronic underreporting, “not knowing what you don’t know”. The website shows what the various regulations are, and the complexity of the regulatory environment.

 

Mr. Tublitz continued with another question regarding the “1 in 7” rule. He opined that since faculty sign a contract to perform certain duties that did not have any specific hours of work involved and this policy would seem to require faculty to quantify the number of hours worked, and secondly, why does the university need to know what faculty are doing in their time off from the institution, such as on the weekends. He stated that is a fundamental right for faculty to be able to do what they want to during off hours without disclosing what it is; there is a difference between 1 in 5 and 1 in 7. Mr. Tomlin replied that 1 in 7 does not mean that one of the weekend days was “owned by the company store.” The things that on chooses to do privately do not need to be disclosed. The 1 in 7 rule is a commonly used means for describing a boundary beyond which it is reasonable to believe that the regular teaching, research, and service activities might be compromised (the 1 day in 7 rule come from the Oregon Statutes regarding what is permissible activity beyond fulltime employment). The provost also has noted that the 1 in 7 rule is a guideline and that performance is the basis for whether one is meeting contractual commitments to the university. Mr. Linton added that if you are meeting your responsibilities and satisfying your obligations to the university, then you are encouraged to go up to the 1 in 7 level of engagement with outside activities. At the threshold above that level, then disclosure comes into play. Part of the reason to update these policies is to gain greater clarity about these thresholds for better understanding across the campus. With discussion running short on time, President van Donkelaar asked further questions to be forwarded to either Vice President Linton or Vice Provost Tomlin for continued discussion.

 

Financial update. Vice President for Finance and Administration Frances Dyke provided a picture of the current budget, saying that it is balanced, but thin for this year, that was after a .75 % budget rescission, after the faculty, OAs and classified staff salary increases are funded (as of November 1^st) and after the provost has given augments to cover the extra costs of the enrollment surge this year. The budget outlook is dependent whether in the current poor economic climate, students will come back to school for winter term -- no one is sure what the financial ability for returning students will be given constraints on lines of credit. The governor’s office forecast is down about $550 million down from what was anticipated. It is possible that we may end down approximately $1 billion, which is about 8 to 9% of the state budget. The governor has set aside a rainy day fund and we have no more information at this time regarding how those funds might affect the university. The financial crisis is a global situation. Concerning the next biennium, the university is in a holding pattern. The next budget comes out December 1^st, and the governor has stated that his priorities are on education, so that is good news. Strong capital projects also are a strong priority. Currently, the university is anticipating that the budget will provide what is needed to operate this year and perhaps some help for larger enrollment growth. The university has yet to know what the legislature has suggested for higher education’s operating budget.

 

Mr. Greg Rikhoff, community relations, next spoke about the progress on the basketball arena project. Mr. Rikhoff reported that the university has been engaged with the Fairmont neighbors on the arena issues. In February a liaison committee between the university and both Fairmont and South University neighborhoods was established to review issues of concern such as litter, noise, parking, and traffic related to the new arena. The interaction was eventually effective in learning from each other and coming to solutions acceptable to both the neighbors and the university. While dealing with the required conditional use permit, the university crafted and retooled agreements with neighbors and other business entities that resulted in improvements in a parking district, traffic flow management plans, and strategies to address liter as well as an ongoing review tool. The agreement can be found on the on the Community Relations website. The Internal Governmental agreement signed between the neighbors and the university was signed October 16, 2008 that fed into the conditional use permit. On November 7^th the UO received the decision of approving the conditional use permit, which can be appealed up to November 19^th at 5:00 p.m. If there is no appeal (and none was anticipated), the university can begin construction. If the decision is appealed, the city would need to make a final determination by December 19^th. Lastly, issues of soil contamination from the buildings previously on the site are being addressed currently.

 

 

REPORTS

 

Senate Budget Committee Sub-Committee on Arena Financing. Mr. John Chalmers, sub-committee chair, provided an update on the committee’s work saying that the committee’s on-going charge is to collect and distill information concerning the arena and its financial impact on the UO, to evaluate risks to the UO budget, and to offer recommendation to the president. The subcommittee will continue to meet once per quarter or as the need arises; the mandate is to stay current with progress on the arena and the financial plan (see http://www.uoregon.edu/~uosenate/dirsen089/SBC12Nov08.pdf for the PowerPoint presentation of this report).

 

Mr. Chalmers reported updated information on the arena bonds, the Legacy Fund, the building permits, and the arena design and seat pricing. He indicated that the university has borrowed $200 million in bonds for the arena, sold in June 2008, $27 million in bond for land, sold in 2005, and $17 million in bonds for underground parking have been sold. The repayment sources are interest on bond proceeds (at 3%, which is about $8 million), capitalized interest (set aside to make interest payments), the Legacy Fund and other Athletic Department resources. In addition, after the construction period there are the arena revenues and ultimately general obligation bonds secured by the State of Oregon. Mr. Chalmers reported a snapshot of when payments are due and where the payments will come from; the first year is covered by capitalized interest; the second year is covered by interest income and the Legacy Fund, and the third year covered by the arena income and the Legacy Fund. He noted that the Legacy Fund is an essential and important part of the financing plan. In light of the current financial turmoil, all donors over $1 million have been contacted and have assured the UO of their pledged amounts to the fund. Investment of the UO Legacy Fund is the responsibility of the UO Foundation. Not covered in the analysis is debt service on the land, which is part of the Athletics Department budget, and debt service on the parking facility bonds, which is part of athletics budget, and other UO auxiliary budgets.

 

Mr. Chalmers referred to Mr. Rikoff’s earlier report on the arena construction schedule and added only that if the conditional use permit is approved, it will take about two weeks to begin construction, and once under construction, it is about 23 months to completion. Concerning the arena seats and prices, Mr. Chalmers was pleased that the designed has a large area for student seating. He noted that two concerns were whether the seat pricing was too rich for the community and whether revenues would be sufficient to cover a large enough share of the costs. He reported that there will be 1,800 students seats, 2,900 seats at $15 per ticket (with no annual Duck Athletic Fund contribution), and 1,240 seats at $25 per ticket (with no annual Duck Athletic Fund contribution). Almost a third of the seats will be priced at about what is current today. Although pricing has not been finalized, what we have seen is promising, and the subcommittee will continue to monitor the development of the plan and its success.

 

Lastly, the committee has several things yet to do: it would like (1) to see more information about how the cash flow will work during the construction period, (2) an analysis of parking and land debt service requirements in the context of the overall Athletic Department budget, (3) a discussion of the investment policy for Legacy Fund, given the turmoil in the current financial markets, (4) an ongoing review of overall Athletic Department budgets, and (5) an ongoing review of arena revenue drivers (such as seats, advertising, Legacy Fund, and so forth).

 

During a question period, Mr. Kilkenny, athletics director, confirmed that almost all the Legacy Fund pledges were greater than $1 million, and those pledges remain in place. He also commented that there is $14 million in contingencies available in the budget, and he assured everyone that the Athletics Department will not spend money it does not have. Mr. Chalmers also commented that although he has not seen the latest in construction costs, his guess is that they may be going down due to the current financial situations throughout the world.

 

 

ANNOUNCEMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE FLOOR

 

There were no announcements from the floor.

 

 

NEW BUSINESS

 

Motion US08/09-2-regarding a Statutory Faculty Meeting. Mr. Frank Stahl, emeritus biology, introduced the motion with brief statement explaining that its purpose is to ratify and amend the governance document under which the UO operates. He noted that according to a recently issued Department of Justice (DOJ) draft opinion (OP-6735), only the statutory faculty, acting in an official capacity, can approve and/or revise the internal governance system of the university. Thus, the motion calls for a meeting of the statutory faculty to ratify a revised internal governance document so that it is in compliance with the DOJ draft opinion. After a second, the motion brought to the floor is:

 

Moved that,

 

The University Senate call for a meeting of the teaching faculty of the University, to be convened and presided over by the University President, for the purpose of ratifying the amended governance document attached or linked, which acknowledges and restores responsibility for UO governance to the teaching Faculty (Professors and President) of the University. The meeting shall be held at 3:30 pm on a Wednesday, not later than the last Wednesday of January 2009.

 

Mr. Stahl provided an historical briefing regarding the motion saying that under the 1876 UO charter, responsibility for university governance lies with the faculty, which in the language of the charter consists of the professors and the president. According to the recently issued DOJ opinion, and to past actions of the UO Assembly, the term "professors" means classroom teaching faculty. The DOJ opinion states that only the teaching faculty, acting in an official capacity, can approve the establishment of our university governance system, such as the current University Senate, that includes non-faculty members. Thus, the existing university governance system has never been officially ratified. This motion calls for a meeting of the teaching faculty to ratify the draft governance document (which was distributed to the senate members – see http://www.uoregon.edu/~uosenate/dirsen089/31Oct08Stahl.html) which establishes the senate in its present form and which also formalizes the legal responsibilities of the faculty by changing the University Assembly to a Faculty Assembly, introducing a quorum requirement, and removing term limits for senators.

 

Mr. Stahl indicated that because there were questions about the quorum requirements for the University Assembly, former Senate President Gordon Sayre requested clarification of the issue from the DOJ. The DOJ responded with a draft opinion, now formalized, saying that there was no quorum requirement, and that the faculty is responsible for faculty governance. Mr. Stahl stated that the failure of the faculty to ratify the current faculty document renders the document of questionable validity, hence the need to call a meeting of the statutory faculty. He reiterated the need to ratify enabling legislation that differs from the present document in three important steps: (1) the University Assembly be replaced by a wholly Faculty Assembly, (2) a quorum requirement be specified even the though the state does not require it, and (3) term limits for senator be removed to provide institutional memory and continuity in the senate. He indicated that should the senate disagree with these three steps or other aspects of the governance document, he would not oppose them, but believes it is very important to have a statutory faculty meeting.

 

During the debate of the motion, there was considerable discussion regarding the several parts of the motion, that is, the motion to have a meeting and to ratify a revised governance document. President van Donkelaar clarified that the motion deals with calling a meeting of the statutory faculty to ratify the current senate, and he added that the proposed governance document was one revised governance plan and that there well might be others. For example, the Senate Executive Committee met to discuss Mr. Stahl’s proposal and suggested that the statutory meeting be delayed to later in the year to have a longer time to discuss more completely the issues raise in the proposed governance document as well as many others in preparation for the arrival of a new University President.

 

Senator Tublitz spoke in favor of the motion, saying that the senate is currently illegal and that the statutory meeting needs to occur sooner rather than later to be a legal entity. President van Donkelaar indicated that the DOJ opinion does not state when a statutory faculty meeting must be held, and he has asked for clarification on that point. Parliamentarian Paul Simonds, emeritus anthropology, clarified that the motion that the senate is voting on currently is to have a statutory meeting by the last Wednesday in January 2009, and that the proposed governance document will come before the faculty at that meeting. The senate is not voting on the proposed governance document at the current meeting. Senator Jeff Hurwit, art history also clarified that the proposed document might not be ratified at the statutory meeting. President van Donkelaar added that he intends to appoint an ad hoc committee to address how to move forward in terms of revising the governance document to determine what they would like a revised governance document to look like, whether it would include a faculty senate or a revised version of the University Assembly.

 

There was continuing discussion of what form a statutory faculty meeting might have, with suggestions to have an email ballot rather than a face to face meeting of the entire faculty. Comments were that it would be important to have information available to the faculty to be certain they were up to date on the relevant issues, but first there should be a meeting to ratify the current governance. It was noted that a group could be formed at the statutory meeting to come up with a governance document to be ratified before the new president arrived. Another suggestion was to roll the statutory meeting into the regular senate meeting by inviting all faculty to attend, but is should be presided over by the University President.

 

Senator Jones, raised the issued of how the University Assembly is to be constituted in the proposed document to which Senator Tublitz replied there currently are two governance bodies, the University Senate and the University Assembly. Mr. Stahl added that the proposal is to make the current University Assembly a Faculty Assembly – current student members and officers of administration would be excluded and only teaching faculty would be included. Mr. Tublitz commented that the faculty has control of governance and they could hand over the governance to others, but they need to make that decision and need to start over at the beginning and correct the mistake that was made by the previous assembly. Senator Jones then reiterated that there are a number of places in the proposed document that need work before coming before the statutory faculty.

 

Senator Hurwit suggested that the senate simply have a meeting in January to ratify the senate and be in compliance in with the DOJ opinion, independent of the proposed governance document. Senator Lynn Stephen, anthropology supported the idea of holding a separate meeting to ratify the senate as it now exists. That meeting could be used to engage and invigorate the faculty to the need for revising faculty governance. Senator Reza suggested just having the statutory faculty at the next senate meeting. That idea was explored, but the importance of getting the entire faculty on board with revising the totality of faculty governance. With time becoming an issue, President van Donkelaar outlined several courses of action to take with the motion on the floor: vote on it as is, amend it, or table the motion. He also noted that the DOJ opinion did indicate that the statutory faculty could meet and delegate its power to the senate, as it now exists.

 

With further discussion, an amendment to the motion on the floor was put forward as follows:

 

Moved that,

 

The University Senate call for a meeting of the teaching faculty of the University, to be convened and presided over by the University President, for the purpose of legitimizing the University Senate. The meeting shall be held at 3:30 pm on a Wednesday, not later than the last Wednesday of January 2009.

 

A vote on the amended US08/09-2 main motion was taken and passed unanimously by voice vote.

 

Notice of Motion US08/09-3 regarding an ad hoc Senate Presidential Candidate Assessment Committee. President van Donkelaar noted that the Senate Executive Committee received notice of a motion to form an additional senate ad-hoc committee for the purpose of assessing the presidential candidates and providing input for the final selection. He noted that the search is a closed search and he is working with the chancellor to reach a compromise that would open the search process when the finalists are known.

 

 

ADJOURNMENT

 

With no other business at hand, the meeting was adjourned at 5:00 p.m.

 

 

Gwen Steigelman

Secretary of the Faculty