Minutes of the University Senate Meeting January 13, 2010
Present: G. Baitinger, T. Bars,
J. Bonine, C. Bybee, S. Chakraborty, E, Chan, K. Dellabough, L.
Forrest, H. Gangadharbatla, P. Gilkey, N. Gower, M. Henney, A. Hilts,
J. Hurwit, M.A. Hyatt, M. Jaeger, K. Jensen, C. Jones, H. Khalsa Kaur,
R. Kyr, K. Lenn, H. Lin, C. McNelly, L. Middlebrook, S. Midkiff, T.
Minner, D. Olson, N. C. Phillips, J. Piger, M. Price, N. Proudfoot, L.
Reichardt, P. Southwell, Z. Stark-Macmillan, L. Sugiyama, N.
Tublitz, T. Toadvine, L. Van Dreel, S. Verscheure, P. Walker, M.
Williams
Excused: A. Emami, A.
Laskaya, T. K. Thompson
Absent: C. Bengtson, A.
Berenstein, T. Dishion, C. Ellis, D. Kennett, P. Warnek
CALL TO ORDER
University Senate President Peter Gilkey called the January meeting of
the University Senate to order at 3:05 p.m. in the Harrington Room of
the newly opened John E. Jaqua Academic Learning Center.
President Gilkey recognized Senator John Bonine, law, who moved to
restructure the meeting agenda and discussion times allotted to reflect
an order that he deemed of more importance to the senators (see http://www.uoregon.edu/~uosenate/dirsen090/13Jan10Agenda.html).
The motion to reorganize the agenda was approved (31 in favor, 4
opposed).
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES
Minutes of the December 2, 2009 were approved.
REPORT
The Coming Crisis in College
Completion: Oregon’s Challenge and a Proposal for First Steps.
Mr. Dave Frohnmayer, university president emeritus, spoke about a
recent report he had prepared at the request of OUS Chancellor George
Pernsteiner (see http://www.uoregon.edu/~uosenate/dirsen090/DF-18Nov09.pdf
for full text of the report). He indicated that the report was a
series of data points that appear to illustrate the coming crisis in
Oregon college completion. The impact of the downturn in
economics has been disproportionate among state agencies. The
disproportionately large loss of state general funding has been greater
in higher education than other agencies. Statistics available
show the ever declining revenues for higher education comes at a time
when college degree obtainment is more important than ever in the lives
of Oregonians. Mr. Frohnmayer went on to say that the National
Bureau of Economic Research issued a paper that indicated the actual
value of higher education is roughly doubled for everyone with
additional degree obtainment. However, Oregon is going in the
wrong direction regarding degree obtainment: older Oregonians have a
significantly higher percentage of degree obtainment than their
children do, which is the first time in modern civilization that this
is the case.
Mr. Frohnmayer referred to a number of charts in his report that
displayed the years of disinvestment in higher education in
Oregon. He said that reversing the downward trend of degree
obtainment is a daunting task for the coming years. In light of
such data, the chancellor’s office recently adopted a policy
saying that by the year 2025 the state needs to have 40% of its
population with an associate degree, 40% with a bachelor degree or
higher, and 20% with at least a high school completion. To keep
at the current degree pace, enrollment increase over the next 15 years
would require building a campus 1½ times the size of the
UO. But to accommodate the goals outlined by the
chancellor’s office would require building 3 new campuses of OSU
size over the next 15 years. He said that building and expansion
is the challenge for Oregonians to maintain the quality and standard of
living that is economically competitive and that provides individuals
and families opportunities. Mr. Frohnmayer added that the state
never has faced such a demographic change or one occurring so rapidly
as the one underway currently. He said that higher education has
an enormous responsibility to the future of the state. The
research and economic contribution of the three research universities
(UO, OSU, and PSU) and OHSU is approximately $5 billion a year.
Mr. Frohnmayer concluded his report by opining that there needs to be a
sense of urgency because the present higher education system is a
system that is not sustainable and not designed for the success of
either the students or the institutions. The institutions need to
be more flexible to better deliver educational services. One way
proposed to achieve greater flexibility is to provide for the
establishment of independent public university corporations by
delegating such broad authority to do so to the State Board of Higher
Education.
During a brief questioning period, Mr. Frohnmayer clarified that in the
proposal, the UO would remain in the OUS but each university would have
its own managing board and would manage its own budget.
NEW BUSINESS
Motion US09/10-11 regarding the
Riverfront Research Park. Senator Zack Stark-Macmillan,
ASUO, moved (second by N. Gower) the following motion
Moved:
(1) the University Senate declares
opposition to the planned development of the first 4.3-acre increment
of the Riverfront Research Park North of the railroad tracks on the
South bank of the Willamette River until the University undergoes a
student and faculty inclusive, open process for revising the RRP Master
Plan; and (2) that the Senate President be directed to write and send a
letter to the University President and the City of Eugene expressing
the Senate's opposition to the planned development North of the
railroad tracks along the South bank of the Willamette River.
Senator Stark-Macmillan explained that the motion relates to the Oregon
Research Institute (ORI) building proposed to be built in the
Riverfront Research Park and to the UO’s request to extend its
conditional use permit to build and start construction. Senator
Stark-Macmillan said that the students have issues with their
non-inclusion the building planning process and with extending a
building permit that is 20 years old and that has not been
updated. He noted that the Student Senate recently passed a
resolution similar to this one; they would like faculty support in
opposition to the permit extension (see http://www.uoregon.edu/~uosenate/dirsen090/US090-11.html
for background information and relevant email and other explanatory
correspondence). Because there were students who wished to speak
in favor of the motion, senators yielded the floor to students Daniel
Rottenberg, ASUO Environmental advocate, Rena Schlachter and
Christopher Brehm, landscape architecture students.
Mr. Brehm drew attention to the location of the proposed building
(north of the train tracks) and other landscape and design aspects of
the planned building that did not meet the highest standards of
environmental sustainability. He noted that these concerns were
raised at meetings of the State Board last June and during public
forums held with the university, ORI, and citizens of Eugene to try to
look at alternative site proposals where ORI could be accommodated
south of the tracks (the area north of the tracks includes the
Willamette River Greenway and the floodplain). Although the
university claims that the proposed location north of the tracks
enhances the area and is sustainable, Mr. Brehm said that the issue was
debatable and should be debated by reviewing the master plan for the
area before building as currently proposed. Further, Mr. Brehm
noted that there was disagreement concerning whether the conditional
use building permit had already expired, which was further reason to
delay construction of the building.
Ms. Schlachter added that in proposing the resolution in question, the
students are not opposed to ORI or to Riverfront Research Park
development. Rather, before development occurs, the students
believe that the master plan needs to be updated to meet the
sustainability standards of the 21st century, and that students and
faculty need to be included in the process. She said that the UO
Department of Architecture is rated number one in sustainability and is
a valuable resource that should be utilized in this planning
process. Lastly, she noted that public record shows overwhelming
opposition to the current development plan, with over 600 citizen
comments in opposition to the proposed building submitted to the
city. Mr. Brehm added to comments in support of the motion by
saying that this is a critical decision point. He repeated that
the students are not against development, but the current building
proposal will have implications for the short and long term
future. The motion proposes having a faculty and student
inclusive development process that includes the entire university
community so they can consider the first increment of the development
north of the tracks within the floodplain.
Vice President for Research Rich Linton provided a response in
opposition to the motion. He highlighted a number of key points
regarding the Riverfront Research Park planning and, specifically, the
proposed ORI building project (see http://www.uoregon.edu/~uosenate/dirsen090/Linton-8Jan2010.pdf).
First, he explained that the Riverfront Research Park is important to
the UO, and increasingly so. He noted that the issue is not
whether ORI is an appropriate tenant – all are in agreement that
it is an ideal fit for the research park as a credible research
enterprise, one that has leased space for a number of years and employs
a large number of people. ORI’s project to expand with a
new building site was started quite a while ago, and planning proceeded
along the guidelines that were set out in the master plan use permit
for the research park. Vice President Linton noted that the
university has a formal lease agreement with the developer of the
project to use the site; at this point, having followed all protocols
for design with the review committee, and receiving approval from the
state board, he said it is fair to say the UO will be proceeding with
the project.
The vice president said that the reason the issue has been raised in
recent months is partly due to a legal mixed opinion about when the
existing conditional use permit actually expires. As a
precautionary measure, in the fall 2009 the university submitted a
request to extend the building permit for a period of 3 years.
This was in recognition that the university wanted to accomplish two
things during that 3 year period. One was the ORI project that
has been in development over a number of years, and the other is to
have a multi-tenet building developed by the UO. He added that
over the course of several meetings, some design changes were made to
the ORI plan utilizing input from faculty and students on how to
configure the ORI site to improve the setback from the river, to reduce
the parking footprints, and other particulars that have been raised
about a sustainable vision for the design of the building. The vice
president concluded saying that it is critical that the university
moves ahead with this project, in good faith with ORI and the
developer.
During the discussion period, a number of questions were asked,
primarily to clarify information. Senator Kassia Dellabough, AAA,
ask about the financial impact to the university if the project were
abandoned. Mr. Linton replied that the university is committed to
implementing what already is in place, that is, development and design
costs associated with the site which is probably in the neighborhood of
$1 million. Senator Ted Toadvine, environmental studies and
philosophy, asked to what extent to the community and campus have been
involved in the planning. Mr. Linton replied that the planning
process was a long term exercise and the university followed the
established protocols under the master plan for the Riverfront Research
Park. There has been strong discourse of stakeholders which has
included advisory committee, the State Board of Higher Education, EWEB,
and consultation with the campus community. Senator Bonine asked
if there was any memorandum legally binding the university’s
commitment to ORI if the project was cancelled. Mr. Linton said
that the university has a legal agreement with the higher education
state board and that the lease agreement is in the hands of the
developer, so there is liability for the university. It was
clarified, too, that the city did approve extending the conditional use
permit, which is the decision that is currently under appeal.
There was some disagreement about the date when the original permit
expired which prompted the university to make the permit extension
request. The city did not resolve the original expiration date
issue, but did approve a three year permit extension. Mr. Linton
added that the research park group worked with the student group and
AAA faculty leaders around the site plan and proposals for other site
alternatives that might have been viable in the research park
domain. Some adjustments were made in the setback distance and
reduction in the parking lot size. The conclusion from the
university and ORI point of view is that the proposed site most suits
ORI’s needs.
Mr. Brehm raised a point concerning a University Senate resolution from
11 years ago that urged President Frohnmayer not to develop the area
north of the railroad tracks. When he and others met with ORI and
Riverfront Research Park staff, they looked at three alternative sites
which they believed were viable alternatives. In addition, Mr.
Brehm said the students do not believe that all that can be done to
design a better project has been done to make the site a sustainable
site. Mr. Linton pointed out that ORI has a tight timeline for
the project because it has federal stimulus money involved, and thus
cannot afford to delay construction very long or they will lose the
funding. He reiterated that the university only wanted an
extension long enough to do projects that have been on the drawing
board for some time and that are consistent with current planning
guidelines and protocols. Then, he suggested, the university will
take a break and look at the master plan again.
Senate Vice President Nathan Tublitz stated that he was in favor of the
motion for three reasons: first, the precedence of the earlier senate
resolutions (see US98/99-4 and US 99/00-15A) recommending that
President Frohnmayer not build north of the railroad tracks (and
instead designate the area as open space for recreational use; second,
the notion of shared governance was not followed in that people were
not consulted; and third, the university has a responsibility to do the
best for the entire community, not just for one tenant. Ms.
Elisabeth Chan landscape architecture, also spoke in favor of the
motion saying that it is a pinch point, a hinge that links the
university to downtown Eugene. She said that over the past 20
years more has been learned in the development of sites such as the
proposed area, and that this is a critical time to make a good choice,
which is our responsibility.
Ms. Barbara Altmann, chair of the Faculty Advisory Council (FAC), spoke
to correct information that had appeared in two recent (January 3 and
January 10) Op Ed articles in the Register Guard newspaper. She
said there were incorrect statements in both articles referring to
actions taken by the FAC. The correct information is that the FAC
did not vote on the Riverfront Research Park building issue nor did it
take a public position on the issue.
Ms. Diane Wiley, director of the Riverfront Research Park, provided
visuals of the current site plan, the landscaping around the building
(which has been moved 100 feet back from the river), and the bike paths
along the riverfront, which will be widened and lighted with safety
railings installed. She also noted that the advisory committee
for this project, which was recommended by the Campus Planning
Committee, included 5 faculty members and 2 students. Senator
Huaxin Lin, mathematics, spoke against the motion, saying that he did
not see what was wrong with the proposed plan. Mr. Gower, ASUO,
spoke in favor of the motion on the grounds that plans to build north
of the railroad tracks were made in opposition to previous senate
legislation and that there was not appropriate consultation to make the
building area change. Lastly, Mr. Ron Lovinger, landscape
architecture, spoke in support of the motion, saying that the building
site is on one of the most precious landscapes that the university has,
and the university should preserve the site and not build there, not
only for the sake of the current generation, but for future
generations.
There was a motion to call the question (30 in favor and 5
opposed). With the question
called, Motion US09/10- 11 was put to a vote and passed (29 in favor
and 8 opposed).
Motion US09/10-12A – regarding
the Provost sharing decision letters with the chair of the Faculty
Personnel Committee (FPC). Mr. Frank Stahl, emeritus
biology, introduced the motion saying that it arose from a change in
practice in which the provost failed to communicate to the FPC his
decisions with respect to their recommendations on promotion and tenure
cases because he believes he is not allowed legally to do that for
conditions of personnel privacy. Since putting forth the original
motion, Mr. Stahl said that he and others have been in contact with the
provost and, as a result, Mr. Stahl has crafted an improved version of
the motion which he would like to offer as a substitute for the
original motion (see http://www.uoregon.edu/~uosenate/dirsen090/US090-12.html
for background information on this motion). With no objection
from senators, the following substitute version of Motion US09/10-12A
was put on the floor for discussion:
Moved
that,
Prior to notifying a candidate, the
Provost shall consult with the FPC, or an appropriate subcommittee
thereof, when the Provost anticipates that the final decision could
differ from the recommendation of the FPC. During his
consultation, the Provost shall explain his/her reasons for
entertaining a decision contrary to the recommendation of the FPC. At
the time a decision does go forth to a candidate, the Provost shall
notify the FPC Chair of the decision.
During the discussion period, Mr. Stahl explained that the substitute
motion added the need for the provost to consult with the FPC in
instances when his decision is likely to disagree with the FPC
recommendation. Mr. Gordon Sayre, chair of the FPC, indicated
that he has been in communication with past FPC chairs and there is
agreement that the motion is acceptable. Senator Priscilla
Southwell, political science, asked for more clarification in instances
when the FPC vote is not unanimous. Mr. Stahl replied that the
FPC sends recommendations to the provost on all cases, not just a
report of the votes, so he receives information on all cases.
Senator Chris Phillips, mathematics, moved to remove the word
“Chair” from the motion so that the provost would notify
the committee and not just the committee chair. This amendment
was accepted and the word chair was removed from the motion.
Similarly, a motion was made to add the words “his or her”
after the word “that” in place of the word
“the”. This amendment also met with no opposition and
was accepted.
Senator Bonine said that although he was unhappy with the assumption of
a legal impediment to sharing the decision with the FPC – he
could find no support for this assumption in Senior Vice Provost Russ
Tomlin’s memo on the topic – he was in support of the
amended motion. Mr. Sayre commented that the thinking behind Mr.
Tomlin’s memo was that once the decision (on tenure and/or
promotion) was made and the decision letter went out, the file was
complete and confidential. However, with the proposed motion, the
consultation occurs before the letter goes out so the decision is still
“in process”. Mr. Stahl added that the FPC already
has made its recommendations on the cases and they would not be changed
– it is the provost who has the ultimate decision to make.
One more clarifying amendment was made to replace “During his
consultation” with “During this period of
consultation”. This amendment was accepted. Thus the
amended version of US09/10-12A reads as follows:
Move
that,
Prior to notifying a candidate, the
Provost shall consult with the Faculty Personnel Committee (FPC) or an
appropriate subcommittee thereof, when the Provost anticipates that his
or her final decision could differ from the recommendation of the FPC.
During this period of consultation, the Provost shall explain his or
her reasons for entertaining a decision contrary to the recommendation
of the FPC. At the time a decision does go forth to a candidate, the
Provost shall notify the FPC of the decision.
With discussion winding down, there was a motion to call the question,
which passed. President Gilkey
put motion US09/10-12A, as amended, to a vote which passed
unanimously.
President Gilkey then recognized Mr. Stahl regarding Motion US09/10-12B
which also was on the agenda. Mr. Stahl said he withdraws the
motion.
ADJOURNMENT
President Gilkey noted the lateness of the hour and recognized Senator
Phillips who moved to adjourn the meeting. The meeting was
adjourned at 4:57 p.m.
Gwen Steigelman
Secretary of the Faculty
| Last update on 15 February 2010 by ms |