Motion US97/98-10 was adopted by the UO Senate 13 May 1998. It deals with course evaluations and states:

It is proposed that University Senate legislation of May 8, 1996 pertaining to Student Evaluation of Teaching and Learning be amended to add the following two required questions on course evaluations under section I. Quantitative Student Evaluation of Teaching and Learning, Item 3.:

c. In comparison with other UO courses of this size and level, do you believe that the class time was well organized and efficiently used throughout the course?
d. In comparison with other UO courses of this size and level, how well did your instructor encourage communication outside of class time?

This change is to take effect fall, 1999 to allow use of existing supplies of forms.

I received a memo from you on Wednesday 6 October requesting an extension of full implementation of the new Course Evaluations. I have consulted Secretary of the Senate Gwen Steigelman; she informs me that that it is within the purvue of the Senate President to deal with your request. I have consulted with both the Senate Executive Committee and also with the Student Senate. They raised no objections to your request. Your reasons for delaying the implementation are compelling, but perhaps the one point most relevant is the financial burden imposed on departments which have not exausted their supplies of evaluation forms and who likely will incur redued expenses if/when a different updated system is put in place post Y2K.The statement in the original motion that cited a fall 1999 implementation date was fiscally based. Thus to facilitate the original intent of the motion, I am granting an extenstion of the original target of Fall 1999 for full implementation until Spring 2000.

Peter B Gilkey (UO Senate President 1999/2000)

At the May 13 1998 meeting of the UO Senate, the Senate adopted Motion US97/98-10.This motion added two new required questions to the course evaluations. Implementation of the two questions was scheduled to begin in Fall 1999.

I respectfully request an extension of full implementation of Senate Motion US97/98-10. There are several compelling reasons for being unable to fully implement inclusion of the two new questions in all course evaluations:

• 1. The software and computer used to process course evaluations is very old. While tests have been run including the two new questions, these have been done on small data sets. The system is not Y2K compliant and may be not functional after January.
• 2. The Office of Academic Affairs is in the process of exploring other options for conducting course evaluations. A promising option would be to switch to a commercial web-based system. Such a system would have the advantage of relieving departments for the inconvenience and expense of purchasing the scan forms.
• 3. Some departments have not exhausted their supply of the old forms. It would be a financial burden to require them to discard all of the old forms.

Jack M. Rice jrice@darkwing.uoregon.edu Associate Vice Provost for Academic Affairs, Office of Academic Affairs 346-3029

Peter --

It's an interesting question whether the executive committee has the power/rights to delay implementation of legislation. I believe it does. The role of the exec committee is to "advise" the senate president and "facilitate" the workings of the senate. Historically, this has included a wide assortment of actions, among them the implementation of motions passed by the senate. Jack's reasons for delaying the implementation of the motion are compelling, but perhaps the one point most relevant is the financial burden bourne by departments that have not exhausted their supplies of evaluation forms, and whom likely will incur reduced expenses if/when a different updated system is put in place post Y2K. (Notice that the statement in the motion that cited a fall 1999 implementation date was fiscally based.) Therefore, I think it's wholly reasonable for the exec committee to step in and help facilitate the implementation of this motion by extending the deadline if it thinks it's prudent and so advises the president. I don't believe it is at all an issue for debate in the student senate -- it was passed by the university senate -- nor in the university senate, for that matter. It seems to me that both senates need only be informed of the change in implementation date (a relatively minor delay) and reasons why. The content/action and intent of the motion remains unchanged. Gwen