Minutes of the University Senate Meeting Wednesday, February 10, 2010

Present:  G. Baitinger, T. Bars, A. Berenstein, C. Bybee, E, Chan, H. Gangadharbatla, J. Hurwit, M.A. Hyatt, M. Jaeger, K. Jensen, C. Jones, D. Kennett, H. Khalsa Kaur, R. Kyr, K. Lenn, H. Lin, C. McNelly, S. Midkiff, T. Minner, N. C. Phillips, M. Price, P. Southwell, Z. Stark-Macmillan, L. Sugiyama, N. Tublitz, T. Toadvine, L. Van Dreel, S. Verscheure, P. Walker, M. Williams

Excused: J. Bonine, A. Laskaya, L. Middlebrook, T. K. Thompson

Absent: C. Bengtson, S. Chakraborty, K. Dellabough, T. Dishion, C. Ellis, A. Emami, L. Forrest, N. Gower, M. Henney, A. Hilts, D. Olson, J. Piger, N. Proudfoot, L. Reichardt, T. K. Thompson, T. K. Thompson, P. Warnek

CALL TO ORDER

University Senate President Nathan Tublitz called the meeting of the University Senate for February 10, 2010 to order at 3:05 p m. in the Harrington Room of the Jaqua Center.

APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES

Minutes of the January 13, 2010 senate meeting were approved. 

OPENING REMARKS

With the resignation of Senate President Peter Gilkey shortly after the January 13th senate meeting, Vice President Nathan Tublitz assumed the presidency of the senate.  President Tublitz commented that, with a new university president and a relatively new provost, the senate has an opportunity at hand to bring a number of elements together that have been divided for a long time, and to help make the university the best place it can be.  He reminded senators that decisions at the university are made both in the administration and through the university governance system.  With that in mind, he asked for renewed efforts to work together to move the university forward.

Noting the effectiveness last month of a longer discussion period that resulted from changing the January agenda order, President Tublitz drew attention to the current meeting’s proposed revised agenda, which moves a discussion on topical, key issues and new business items (motions) to an earlier position on the agenda, and moves reports and other announcements toward the end of the meeting.  He asked the senate to adopt the proposed revised agenda order for a 3 month trial period.  Senator Chris Phillips, mathematics, suggested ordering the new business items ahead of the open discussion (reversing item # 4 with #5) and having a 2 month trial period.  His suggestions met with general approval and the motion to change the agenda order for a 2 month period was approved.

STATE OF THE UNIVERSITY

Provost Jim Bean began his remarks by saying that the recent passage of legislative Measures 66 and 67 was good news for the university.  He said although there was no “new money”, funds set aside in anticipation of the measures failing means that money does not have to be paid back to the state and may now be allocated to the schools and colleges to offset the surge in student enrollment realized this academic year.  He added that the university has gotten through the last year in much better shape than most institutions; and, although we had to have mandated furloughs of the classified staff, we avoided lay-offs.  The university was not able to improve faculty salaries in the past year, but many other institutions had to release faculty and not hire new faculty.  Nevertheless, the provost indicated we have not fixed the problem, but as we look forward a plan is nearly complete, with University President Lariviere’s support, for bringing faculty and OA’s salaries up to AAU averages over the next couple of years. 

Next, the provost provided some updates on implementing the Academic Plan developed last year.  He noted that with changes in the economic climate, they have had to make some emergency decisions.  The surge in student enrollment (which helped to avoid lay-offs and minimize furloughs) also has put a lot of stress on faculty and staff to deal with all of the new students.  Consequently, we are in a somewhat different situation in looking at some of the issues regarding implementing the Academic Plan.  The provost noted that it no longer is a matter of whether enrollment will climb to 24,000 students – we are nearly there now.  Rather, the choice is either to roll back enrollment or to improve the infrastructure to match it.  The provost said we still need to improve graduate student enrollment, but 24,000 students is the university’s limit.  Thus, the plan is to catch up on needed facilities and faculty hiring (projected need of 125 new faculty positions).  The provost added that we are hiring 30 new faculty positions this year, and graduate student applications are up 30% compared with the same time period last year.  He commented that we have a lot of financial challenges with the doctorial program, but are finding a strong market place, so we are making real progress.

Lastly, the provost noted that first five “Big Ideas” chosen by faculty committee last spring already are getting underway and progressing better than forecast.  Each Big Idea has a resource allocation of $50,000, plus any funds they raise on their own.  The first phase of the Big Ideas includes: the Americas in a Globalized World, Global Oregon, Human Health and Performance, Green Product Design, and Sustainable Cities.  The faculty committee, now called the Big Ideas Council, includes representatives from each Big Idea group, and has two deans, staff from the development office, and representatives from the corporate world on it as well.

During a brief question period, Senator Phillips asked if the university could find some savings by using classrooms for longer periods of time throughout the day.  The provost responded by saying that the university is already doing this.  The “discount” that was offered previously to students who took classes offered as less popular times has been discontinued because classes scheduled for early morning, late afternoon, and evening are filling without any financial incentive to do so simply because there are so many students.  Provost Bean also remarked that Mac Court is slated to be an academic use facility sometime in the near future. Although the exact academic use has not been determined.

NEW BUSINESS

Election of an interim vice president.  Senate President Tublitz expressed his desire to fill the vice president position now vacant since he became president of the senate.  He suggested that it would be useful to have a leadership team in addition to the reformulated Senate Executive Committee in order to assist in making good choices for the senate.  He opined that a vice president would take over for the president in his absence for any reason, and would only be an interim position until the election of a new vice president in October 2010.  President Tublitz further explained that when he was elected as vice president last spring, he was also elected as president elect (for academic year 2010-11).  When he assumed the presidency (upon Peter Gilkey’s resignation), he was no longer vice president but he did not relinquish being president-elect.  Thus, his request is to elect only an interim vice president.  At this point, Senator Mary Ann Hyatt, Nominating Committee, moved to elect an interim vice president. 

President Tublitz opened the floor for discussion.  Senator Huaxin Lin, mathematics, said that although he was in support of President Tublitz serving as president this year and as president next year, he believed the way the by-laws  are written prevented him from doing so, and thus should be amended.  He cited by-laws Article 4.3 which states; “The President and the Vice-President are the elected officers of the University Senate.  The Vice-President also serves as President-Elect.”  Senator Lin contended that when President Tublitz assumed the senate presidency and was no longer vice president, he also was no longer president-elect.  Thus, this portion of the by-laws needs to be amended to permit President Tublitz to serve as president next year.  President Tublitz acknowledged that the by-laws were not written as clearly as one might like, and in anticipation of this potential issue, had asked Senate Parliamentarian Paul Simonds, emeritus anthropology, for a ruling on the matter prior to recommending the election of an interim vice president.  Parliamentarian Simonds then spoke and said he looked at both the by-laws and Roberts Rules of Order, and both sources treat the position of vice president and president-elect as two separate entities; they are not the same office.  Thus, Mr. Simonds ruled that there is a vacancy in the vice presidency position, but not in the president-elect position.  President Tublitz accepted Mr. Simonds ruling and indicated that the senate would now vote to elect a vice president.  Senator Lin indicated that he still felt the by-laws needed amending, and thus indicated that he would give notice of such a motion later in the meeting. 

In light of the previous discussion, Senator Phillips suggested that it be made clear that the motion was only to elect an interim vice president only.  With that caveat, President Tublitz put the motion to elect an interim vice president for the period of time until a new vice president could be elected in October 2010 to a vote, and the motion passed.  

Next, President Tublitz indicated that Mr. Peter Keyes, architecture, said that he would be a candidate for the interim vice president position.  The president asked if there were any other nominations from the floor, and hearing none, asked Mr. Keyes to speak to the senate.  Mr. Keyes said that he is a former Senate President and has been active in a number of campus issues such as the Westmoreland housing issue, the Diversity Plan, revision of the Student Conduct Code; he is currently a member of the Senate Budget Committee and the Faculty Governance Committee.  Further, he indicated that he is interested in producing a product, not just in the processes of governance.  During a question period, Mr. Keyes clarified that President Tublitz would continue to head the Committee on Committees, and when asked if he might be interested in being elected as a regular vice president in October, he indicated not at the present time.  With discussion winding down, President Tublitz put the election of Peter Keyes as interim vice president to a voice vote, which passed. 

Motion US09/10-6 Concerning Nominations for Senate Vice Presidency.   The Senate Rules Committee put forth the following motion concerning nominations for the senate vice presidency: 

Moved that,

The Secretary of the Senate is directed to write to all eligible candidates on 15 September to solicit self-nominations.  The Secretary of the Senate also writes to all members of the then existent Senate to solicit self-nominations.  The nominating process closes 1 October with the election occurring at the first Senate meeting of the academic year.

By way of background information, Senator Tracy Bars, Rules Committee, indicated the motion was necessary to amend the Senate By-laws in light of passing Motion US09/10-5 which moved the election of the vice president from an organizational senate meeting in late May of the academic year to the first senate meeting in the fall term each year.  The current motion prescribes the process timelines by which nominations for the position of senate vice president are solicited.  Senator Bars said that the goal of the legislation was to make sure that all candidates have an equal opportunity to prepare statements regarding their candidacy and senators have an equal opportunity to get to know the candidate before voting on them.  With no further discussion forthcoming, President Tublitz put Motion US09/10-6 to a vote, which passed.

Notice of motion.  President Tublitz recognized Senator Lin who gave notice that he wished to put the following motion before the senate at the next meeting:

Moved that,
In the event that the office of the President becomes vacant, the Vice President will assume the office of the President and will retain the title of the President-Elect.  In the event that the Vice President resigns, he/she may not serve as the President-Elect.

OPEN DISCUSSION

Budget Priorities.  President Tublitz explained that he intends to have an open discussion period at each senate meeting on a topical issue of importance to the university.  The discussion would be an opportunity for senators and other attending the meeting to voice opinions and concerns on the particular topic.  To begin this discussion, university budget priorities is the discussion topic for the meeting.  President Tublitz commented that the university is in the process of reevaluating budgetary priorities in light of a new budget model that is being implemented.  Further, Provost Bean will set up a website to continue the budget priorities conversation initiated at this meeting. 

Prior to getting into specific budget concerns, Ms. Sandy Vaughn, director of Club Sports, noted that she would like to see some discussion regarding having new buildings on campus that circumvented the Campus Planning Committee process, and although not directly related to budget priorities per se, it is a concern of some faculty.  President Tublitz acknowledged that the issue Ms. Vaughn raised was a complicated one that does involve use of fiscal resources.  He suggested that rather than make it part of the discussion at hand, he would come back to it at another time. 

As the discussion unfolded, the following general areas of concern were identified by faculty, staff, and student senators as among the top budget priorities the campus needs to address:
President Tublitz thanked everyone for participating in the discussion and for getting a number of priorities aired.  He indicated that he would share the items raised with the provost for further discussion.  He also encouraged everyone to talk with their constituent groups and other colleagues about this topic and participate in a campus –wide on-line discussion that the provost will be putting in place shortly. 

REPORTS

Summary of revised officers of administration (OA) policies.  Associate Vice President for Human Resources Linda King began her remarks saying that the full report of the revised OA policies was posted on the senate website (see (http://www.uoregon.edu/~uosenate/dirsen090/LKingOAReport6Jan10.pdf) and the Human Resources website.  In summarizing the highlights of the report, Ms. King indicated that OA priorities including: a “home” for OA employment policies, issues and concerns; a consistent set of policies; regular feedback about performance; ability to air concerns and complaints using an accessible, understandable process; opportunity for professional development that targets leadership skills; flexibility in work schedule for personal or family reasons; consistent policy and practices regarding compensation; and consistent policy and practices regarding contracts, particularly timely notice provisions.  She explained that there has been success in achieving some of these objectives and there has been progress made on others. 

Specifically, Ms. King drew attention to a number of important activities.  Responsibility for OA employment has been assigned to Human Resources and funding was provided for a position dedicated to OA employment.  Four candidates will visit campus in the next weeks to interview for the position of Associate Director of Human Resources for OA Employment, which is charged with carrying out policy development work and serving as a resource on OA issues.  She added that OA employment matters rightfully belong in Human Resources, and that Academic Affairs will continue to provide functions related to academic appointments for tenure related faculty, non tenure track faculty and librarians. 

Next, Ms. King said that significant progress has been made on getting a policy and tracking process in place for annual OA performance appraisals.  The system will support a renewed focus on OAs receiving annual performance reviews.  Regarding professional development, flexible work scheduling, and performance appraisal, policy development is underway and at different stages.  The professional development has been forwarded for submission to the university’s new policy-setting process; flexible work scheduling is drafted and ready to post on the OA policy forum, and the OA performance appraisal policy is drafted and being fine-tuned by the policy sub-committee.  She noted that an OA Council lunch conversation is planned for later in February to brainstorm the facets of an informal dispute resolution or informal grievance process.  The discussion will inform the process involved with dispute resolution and grievances and will help refine the services and expectations of the newly created associate director for OA employment position. 

Ms. King remarked that there was an intentional delay in dealing with the lack of consistency in timely notice provisions and contracts types across vice presidential areas, based on advice from the working group to get some of the other initiatives in place first.  She acknowledged that many OAs are anxious to see movement on this issue, and that the committee plans to begin working on the topic in the next month. Ms. King concluded her remarks noting that Human Resources will continue to provide a variety of opportunities for discussion of these policy initiatives during OA Council sponsored events, through the Human Resources website, and through other conversations with individuals and groups as requested or as the need arises.  Lastly, to a question as to whether top administrators are included under these OA policies, Ms. King replied that they are; she noted that OAs are a very large and diverse employment group on campus.

Update from ASUO President Emma Kallaway.  Ms. Kallaway listed a number of activities in which the ASUO has been engaged.  Notably, 3,500 students were registered to vote in the recent election on Ballot Measures 66 and 67.  Also, the ASUO has changed its office area from an inaccessible space to one that is now accessible.  They also are tackling the issue of reining in costs for special services such as LTD bus service and availability of football tickets for students.  Just recently they reached an agreement with the athletic department to secure greater availability of student football tickets that also saves the ASUO $185,000.  Ms. Kallaway commented, in an understated way, that it has become very apparent to her that football tickets matter. 

ASUO President Kallaway noted that the ASUO is still suffering a $300,000 budget shortfall due to complications of previous years.  She assured everyone that the ASUO is not in debt, but acknowledged that reserve funds are much lower than in previous years.  Nevertheless, ASUO is functioning at a normal level.  She said that 2,200 students have indicated that LTD bus service is something they value and use, but the rising cost of that service will be a discussion item for the ASUO over the next few weeks.  Ms. Kallaway said there remains a lot of work to do in the few months left of her term, such as expanding the use of the “green fees “, and that the ASUO is committed to the effort.  Lastly, she said that the ASUO will continue to support students who have felt marginalized recently (as in the recently painted Nazi symbol in one of the student organization office area). 

ANNOUNCEMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE FLOOR

Notice of motion.  Mr. Bob Bussel, Labor Education and Research Center, gave notice that he will offer a motion at the March meeting concerning the Pacifica Forum whose meetings have generated intense faculty and student reactions to it on campus recently. 

Motion to acknowledge former senate president Peter Gilkey.  Senator Mary Jaeger, classics, made a motion to thank and recognize former senate president Peter Gilkey, mathematics, for all the service he has given in support of faculty governance and the University Senate over the years.  President Tublitz graciously acknowledged the motion which was met with a vote of unanimous support by the senators.

ADJOURNMENT

With a motion from Senator Phillips, the meeting was adjourned at 4:47 p.m.


Gwen Steigelman
Secretary of the Faculty


last update on 24 February 2010 by ms