Minutes of the UO Senate Meeting for February 13, 2013

Minutes of the UO Senate Meeting 13 February, 2013

Prepared and submitted by Christopher S. Prosser, Senate Executive Coordinator

Present:

Absent:

Excused:

1. CALL TO ORDER

Senate President Robert Kyr (Music & Dance) called the meeting of the University Senate for February 13, 2013 to order at 3:04PM in room 101 of the Knight Library. He welcomed Senators to the February meeting, and mentioned that this meeting was particularly important as the Senate would be holding an election for the office of the Senate Vice Presidency/President-Elect.

1.1 Approval of the Minutes of the November 7, December 5, & January 16 Senate Meetings

Senate President Kyr asked the Senate body if there were any corrections to the November 7, December 5, and January 16 meeting minutes. Seeing none, he called for a voice vote to approve the minutes. A voice vote was taken, and the minutes were approved unanimously. He then offered a comment of thanks to Christopher Prosser (Senate Executive Coordinator) for preparing the minutes.

2. STATE OF THE UNIVERSITY

2.1 Remarks by President Michael Gottfredson

President Michael Gottfredson (University President) apologized for his absence during the January Senate meeting. He remarked that he continued to be impressed with the universities student scholars as he had had the opportunity to meet and interact with them at a scholar’s banquet. The President commented that he was glad that they were here as they enriched the campus, and he was also extremely grateful to the generous benefactors who made scholarships available to the university.

President Gottfredson was pleased that the university recognized teaching and providing an exceptional educational experience to students. He was informed that the nominations were closed for the Ersted and Herman Teaching Award, but it was not too late to submit nominations for the Williams Award (March 1 was the deadline). If anyone had questions, they should contact David Hubin (Senior Assistant to the President), who encouraged everyone to nominate their colleagues for the award.

The President highlighted several faculty accomplishments which included Professor Andrew Marcus’ (Associate Dean of Social Sciences) atlas of Yellow Stone National Park. President Gottfredson commented that the atlas was spectacular and was the recipient of the American Publishers Association PROSE (Professional and Scholarly Excellence) Awards. He stated that this was a great tribute to hard work and a great example of the connectivity between scholarship and teaching/classroom experience.

According to President Gottfredson, another hallmark of the University of Oregon was its student’s commitment to service. The UO climbed to the number eight spot on the Peace Corps top college rankings, which was a jump of two positions. Currently, there were eighty-two UO alumni serving overseas in the Peace Corps, and the university had produced over 1,100 Peace Corps volunteers since the Corps inception.

On Friday, February 8 the Jordan Schnitzner Museum of Art opened a new exhibit entitled “West of Center Art and Counter Culture Experiment in America 1965-1977.” On Saturday, February 9 the Museum of Natural History held “Darwin Days” that included tours and activities in an attempt to draw the Eugene community in to experience all that the UO had to offer.

A study was recently completed regarding the university’s economic impact for the most recent fiscal year. The President recommended that everyone view the study as he believed it was very well done and truly emphasized the astounding economic impact that the university had both locally and throughout the region. With the multiplier effect, the study reported that the economic impact was 2.6 billion dollars. The President commented that there were many ways in which to present these statistics, but when considering money brought into the state from the faculty and staff through teaching, research, and support, along with other fees and visitor contributions throughout the region, that figure came close to half a billion dollars. If the governor’s budget were to come through the legislature, which was around forty-six million dollars, the half billion figure was, according to the President, a pretty good return on investment.

Developmental activity was proceeding on pace. He was extraordinarily grateful for the steadfast support that the institution continued to receive from the entire UO community in spite of great economic uncertainty. The university had yet another strong year of giving from this community and would again surpass the one hundred million dollar mark for the sixth year in a row. Much of the support was through athletic capital projects, but the academic side was also ahead of 2012’s contributions.

At noon today, President Gottfredson participated in a ceremony that congratulated and honored those classified staff employees who had served the university for twenty-five plus years. He was privileged to have spoken and congratulated these colleagues on their contributions. The President stated that no one at the university could do their jobs without the contributions of the classified staff and with the relationships that their contributions had built. The university owed them a great measure of thanks for their accomplishments and for what they have allowed others to do everyday in bringing the university forward over an extended period of time.

The President commented that he continued to be very active in the state legislature, and remarked that this was a critical period for the university with respect to legislative activity. There was also critical federal legislation that was being attended to as the university was still under the threat of sequestration, which could have real consequences for the university. He stated that the university would be prepared should sequestration take place, but it would be much more beneficial to the institution if it was not put into effect.

President Goffredson testified in Salem on the Tuition Equity Bill that had recently been introduced into the legislature. His testimony was in support of the Bill, and commented that all seven presidents of Oregon institutions of higher education were in support of the bill. They had all collectively provided a letter to the legislature to that effect. He had seen the positive effects of an analogous bill during his time as an administrator in California, which he spoke about to the state legislature. In his own view, the President stated that tuition equity was an important aspect of the university’s commitment to enable Oregonian students to have access to higher education, and likened it to President Abraham Lincoln’s signing of the Morrill Land-Grant Act in 1862. Higher education was critical to an individual’s economic and social mobility, and enabling that access was one of the great attributes of public universities. He believed that tuition equity connected very nicely to the historical traditions that animated the UO.

The President was pleased to host Oregon Treasurer Ted Wheeler on campus a few weeks ago. During his visit, he met with students to discuss the Oregon Opportunity Grant and the Treasurers idea to create a stable funding source for financial aid for lower income Oregonians. President Gottfredson believed that this was a very good idea, but details needed to be worked out. Part of the attraction of the grant was its ability to provide more reliable and stable financing. The Bill was being developed and would soon come before the legislature for a vote.

President Gottfredson commented that Governor Kitzhaber’s budget would continue to be the focus of his administration’s attention. Significant areas of his budget were critical to the university, and as it worked its way through the Ways and Means Committee, the President would learn more about how the balancing measures faired. The Governor also released his G-bond for capital construction projects. One of those projects included UO’s Straub Hall renovation and the Science and Innovation Library project. His administration was working to insure that those projects would come to fruition.

He was also very focused on the UO governance system that was working its way through the legislature. More information on this topic could be found on the President’s website. The UO was working with PSU (Portland State University) who was also seeking an independent governing board. The bill to establish the governing board was moving through the legislature. A companion governance bill had been introduced in the legislature that would restructure the ways in which higher education was run, and his administration was working diligently with respect to that process.

The President commented on several business items being discussed by the Senate. The first was regarding the establishment of an ombuds office. The President decided that he would authorize the creation of an ombuds position at the UO. The ombuds officer would report directly to the President’s Office. The job description was currently being prepared. According to the President, the ombuds officer’s role would be an impartial third party representative who would help faculty, staff, students, and administrators to resolve disputes through informal negotiation and mediation. He commented that it was a good recommendation by the Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Respectful Workplace.

The Executive Review Committee was convened by Senate President Kyr to develop draft policies and procedures regarding comprehensive reviews for senior academic administrators. The President commented that he had met with that committee, and he believed strongly in animating the ideas of the committee. The President stated that these reviews should take place every five years, at a minimum, and needed to have very broad input from members of the faculty among others. He had provided the committee with a plan for academic reviews and was eager to receive the committee’s critiques and comments on this plan, which would be instituted during the fall term.

President Gottfredson then commented on the IAC (Intercollegiate Athletics Committee). He stated that a portion of the IAC’s charge was to consider the academic experience of student athletes, which was a very important responsibility and that committee should be able to carry out their charge. At the January Senate meeting, a motion was passed that made certain student data available to the IAC, which President Gottfredson supported. He then remarked that the Registrar had institutional responsibilities to protect student privacy, and President Gottfredson had asked the Registrar to make that data that was requested by the IAC available in order to for the committee to continue its work. He recommended that the information be expedited and prepared in a timely fashion.

The next topic of discussion was regarding the Substance Abuse Taskforce. The President had been in several discussions regarding substance abuse on campus, and as a result of those conversations, he asked Robin Holmes (Vice President for Student Affairs) to head a Presidential Taskforce on Substance Abuse. The President was interested in hearing input from the faculty and mentioned that the committee had six members, which were appointed by President Gottfredson. The committee had met, and they were taking a substantial look at substance abuse on campus and the surrounding areas. The committee would put forth a set of recommendations that he would explore with the Senate and elsewhere in an effort to better manage issues of substance abuse on campus.

He then discussed the UO Police Department and whether or not they would begin arming police officers on campus. An advisory ground had been put together to discuss this issue and the group was collecting information and holding campus forums and meetings. President Gottfredson urged everyone to provide their viewpoint regarding this issue if they were inclined to do so. Additional forums were planned for February 24, and March 6, and more information could be found on the Around the O website.

President Gottfredson remained extremely optimistic that the governance issues that were working their way through the legislature would move the university forward. The university was not trying to change its mission of being one of the nation’s premiere public universities. As the state had progressively withdrawn financial support to Oregon public universities, different vehicles had been sought out in an effort to maintain their operation. He believed that the governance change would be instrumental in allowing greater flexibility of funding options to better the university.

The President concluded his remarks by recognizing a member of the university community who had recently passed. Becky Von, a long time employee at the UO’s Office of Public Safety passed away at the end of January. A celebration of her life was held last Saturday.

After President Gottfredson concluded his remarks, Senate President Kyr called for questions from the Senate body.

2.1.1 Questions and Comments with Response

Senator Nancy Bray (Education) thanked President Gottfredson for his comments regarding tuition equity and for mentioning the great work that was done by Classified Staff employees. She then mentioned that the Classified Staff union was beginning contract negotiations with the administration, and she hoped that he would lend his support to those employees during that time. Senator Bray asked President Gottfredson to comment on the process of union contract negotiations between the faculty union and the administration.

President Gottfredson replied that the administration was in active bargaining and he believed that that bargaining was progressing forward in a measured and delivered way that was helpful and agreeable to the university and its common shared purpose of having competitive compensation in all ways for the faculty.

Senator Glen Waddell (Economics) appreciated President Gottfredson’s sentiment regarding the release of data to the IAC. One of the difficulties that the committee was undergoing involved not receiving an interpretation on FERPA requirements from administrators who were involved in the data request. Senator Waddell asked if the data would be made available, to which President Gottfredson replied that he believed the data should be made available in order for the committee to complete its work, which he commented was very important. He also commented that the Registrar also had a legitimate interest that needed to be balanced regarding student privacy.

Senator John Bonine (Law) stated that according to his understanding, legitimate educational interest, the legal standard, would include committees and so forth, and there would be no legal problem with the Registrar to provide information to a committee. He then stated that the question would be whether the Registrar or other officials would consider the committee to be untrustworthy; whereas the Registrar’s office could look at certain records that faculty could not.

President Gottfredson commented that he would not suggest that that happen, and was not interested in making a legal interpretation as that was the General Counsel Office’s purview. He stated that the Senate faculty committees should be able to examine data under the protections of student privacy, which was not an irresolvable matter.

Senator Glen Waddell (Economics) asked President Gottfredson if he would be willing to instruct the General Counsel to provide a similar statement regarding obtaining student data, not specifically for the IAC, but for all campus committees who might need access to similar information. President Gottfredson replied that he would be happy to ask the General Counsel to provide a statement, but he did not view that as a barrier. The real issue was balancing institutional interests with those of the committee in such a way that everyone could get their work done.

Senator Waddell then asked if there was a timeline that he could expect the statement to be issued from General Counsel, to which President Gottfredson replied that some data had been made available to the committee, but the method that he had suggested, which was aggregation, was not suitable to some.

Senator Bill Harbaugh (Economics) commented that as he understood it, the data released was an aggregate, to which President Gottfredson replied that the data had been released as an aggregate, which was not an unusual method of releasing data. Senator Harbaugh asked if the President was intent on finding another method of releasing the data that prevented the committee from looking at certain information, to which President Gottfredson replied that there was no intent to prevent people from looking at certain data points. He was interested in providing data in a manner that was suitable for people to do their work.

Senator Harbaugh stated that the data that he requested was in a form that conceivable it would have been possible to identify a student with great effort, but that made the data unsuitable for several people. President Gottfredson replied that that issue needed to be mitigated in such a way that would be accommodating to all involved.

Senator Harbaugh wanted to know if the committee would never be given access to the data that was requested, to which President Gottfredson replied no, and the point was to try to make the data available so that people could use it. If one method did not work, he would find one that would as was commonly done at institutions all over the nation.

Professor Christopher Philips (Mathematics) asked if there was a significant increase in substance abuse around campus. President Gottfredson replied that research had shown that there was a problem with substance abuse and the university was over the national standard for substance abuse. There was also interest in the community, and the Eugene City Council had recently passed a resolution on behavior in the community. The taskforce was developed to ask questions and to find out if the university was doing all they could do regarding education, prevention, and intervention for students.

Senate President Kyr called for more questions and seeing none, he thanked President Gottfredson for his time.

2.2 Remarks by Senate President Robert Kyr

Senate President Kyr remarked that he had scheduled an additional Senate meeting on April 17, 2013, one week after the regularly scheduled Senate meeting on April 10. The purpose of that meeting was to focus almost entirely on three foundational policies, which were the Academic Freedom and Freedom of Speech Policy, the Facilities Use Policy, and the Legal Representation Policy. The rest of the time would be spent informing the Senate on the progress of the Tenth Year Review of University Standing Committees. Senate President Kyr commented that this was a very important meeting and asked Senators to mark their calendars. He then thanked them for their willingness to attend and participate.

3. NEW BUSINESS I

3.1 Election for Senate President-Elect (Vice President 2012-2013)

Senate President Kyr invited Senator John Bonine (Law), in his capacity as chair of the Senate Nominating Committee, to present his report on the nominations for the office of Senate Vice President. Senator Bonine stated that the Senate Nominating Committee had received two nominations for the office of the Senate Vice President/President Elect. The two candidates were Professor Margaret Paris (Law) and Professor Christopher Phillips (Mathematics). Each candidate was asked to make a statement of their willingness to accept the nomination and to present their vision of what it meant to be the Senate President. This would be followed by a period of discussion where Senators would be given a chance to ask questions from the two candidates. Senator Bonine commented that after considering both candidates, the Senate Nominating Committee recommended that Professor Margaret Paris be elected Vice President/President Elect.

Both candidates had served on the Senate and on the Faculty Personnel Committee (FPC) in the past, and had also served on various departmental committees within their respective schools. Professor Phillips had also served on the ROTC Committee for several years, and as an alternate on the Interinstitutional Faculty Senate (IFS). Professor Paris had served on approximately twenty university committees, work groups, and taskforces, and both candidates had been at the UO for twenty years. Professor Phillips was also active in academic advising, while Professor Paris had counseled faculty members who had filed grievances and for women who had been victims of sexual assault.

Senator Bonine commented that he personally knew Professor Paris to be a thoughtful and collegial leader in his twenty year association with her, and given the comparative factors, Senator Bonine and the Senate Nominating Committee recommended that Professor Paris be the next Senate President. He then invited the candidates to present their statements.

Professor Phillips addressed the Senate body and accepted the nomination. He stated that if elected, he would serve and if he was not elected, he would happily go back to research. He then commented that he never wanted to use the microphone. Professor Phillips stated that his experience had been mentioned earlier and that he had spent most of his time on the math department’s Hiring Committee, which had gone through approximately eight hundred applications for one tenure track position. He then commented that he did not have a great deal of explicit things to say, and remarked that his vision of the Senate was one of organization. He wanted to keep things going and ensure that things ran smoothly. He stated that policies were to be decided by the Senate and not the Senate President, Vice President, or some small committee.

Professor Phillips commented that he thought he was expected to say things that he was concerned about, but was not sure if his concerns actually mattered. He was concerned with issues regarding transparency and had not followed the details surrounding former President Richard Lariviere’s firing due to being on sabbatical for the year. Another concern of his was the size of the administration versus the size of the faculty. He stated that this was an issue everywhere. Professor Phillips was also concerned with the online courses initiative that was being considered at the UO. He did not know how this initiative would turn out and mentioned that it might turn a substantial part of what the faculty did upside down and should not be ignored. He then commented that the UO needed better spam blocking and mentioned an example of science research publications, which sent out one spam message per week. The UO had recently accepted a mathematics paper that was generated at random by a computer program. He wanted to know why the university could not get the Computer and Information Services to block these instances of spam.

After he concluded his remarks, Senate President Kyr called for questions from the Senate body.

Senator Pedro Garcia Caro (Romance Languages) commented that he was also a member of the Senate Nominating Committee and wanted to know how Professor Phillips envisioned his role as a mediator between the President’s Office, the Provost’s Office, and the Senate.

Professor Phillips replied that he envisioned his primary role as making sure that the Senate operated properly and the Senate would decide what it wanted to do in response to the President and Provost’s offices. He would be happy to report the decisions made by the Senate to those offices.

Senator Kassia Dellabough (AAA) wanted to know Professor Phillips’ thoughts/strategies in strengthening participation in the Senate. She commented that there were very few Senators at the meeting. She also asked how he would increase the visibility of the Senate and its various activities across campus.

Professor Phillips replied that he was asked to accept the nomination for Senate Vice President less than forty-eight hours ago and he had not thought very much about Senator Dellabough’s question, but remarked that he was surprised to see how few people there were at the beginning of the meeting. He then commented that he did not have any specific ideas regarding her questions, but attendance seemed to be a problem which would require some work.

Senate President Kyr called for further questions. Seeing none, he thanked Professor Phillips for his statement, and called Professor Margaret Paris (Law) to the Senate floor to present her statement.

Before she could give her statement, Professor Phillips commented that the Senate Vice Presidency had been vacant for most of the academic year and now there were two nominees for the position. He then pointed out that he was trying his best to do his part.

Professor Paris stated that she thought that it was really cool that there were two nominees for the position and thanked Professor Phillips for accepting the nomination. She commented that they both had served on the FPC. She hoped that in the future there would be at least two people running for all positions relating to faculty governance. She then introduced herself to the Senate body and stated that she was a member of the faculty who had been at the UO for just over twenty years. She was called to serve in an administrative capacity in 2001 and served as Associate Dean for Academic Affairs in her unit and then served as Dean from 2006-2011. Since that time, she had happily returned to the faculty. What gave her the most joy was working with individuals to navigate through institutions. She commented on her work with faculty, staff, and students regarding grievance appeals and student conduct code issues. She then mentioned that in her former career she had been a criminal defense lawyer and always wanted to be the person who was helping someone to face a massive institutional force.

Professor Paris stated that the Senate’s voice needed to have someone at the helm that was going to help others to navigate the waters of shared governance. As someone who delighted in that process, she believed the Senate would benefit from her leadership. She then discussed the work of the Senate under Senate President Kyr’s leadership and where she thought the Senate was today. The first point discussed was regarding the policy that was being developed by the Executive Review Committee to involve the Senate in reviews of academic administrators. She had previously been involved in this process as a committee member and had very much enjoyed working collaboratively with President Gottfredson and other members of the committee in a way that served as a model for what the Senate was capable of doing.

Her second example of the Senate’s momentum involved the work of the Committee on Committees, which was currently engaged in the Ten Year Review of Senate committees. Through this review, the university would have a better understanding of how service was valued at the UO. She hoped the review would streamline the service structure and get people excited about serving the university. She wanted to see this work continue and stated that if elected, she would happily accept the term of service and looked forward to serving the Senate body. She then asked for questions from the Senate body.

Professor Paris addressed Senator Pedro Garcia Caro’s (Romance Languages) question asked earlier of Professor Phillips. She replied that it was vital that the Senate and Senate President dealt with administrators in a very constructive and cooperative way. Although she came from an adversarial background (criminal justice), she did not believe that that was the best way to do business. The progress that the Senate had made was a function of people deciding what their shared goals were and determining a way in which to achieve those shared goals together.

Senator Bill Harbaugh (Economics) asked Professor Paris to comment on her views of transparency and how that related to the Senate’s role in accessing information in order to do the work that was required of them. He then asked her to comment on the Intercollegiate Athletics Committee’s (IAC) charge, which was currently being reviewed by the Committee on Committees. Senator Harbaugh stated that the current charge was very broad, which he believed was appropriate.

Professor Paris commented that the work that had been done to increase transparency was very important, and stated that the university needed to have a clear policy and process on providing public records quickly. She also remarked that the university should not be put into a position where it would not be able to carry out its public records requests. With respect to Senator Harbaugh’s question regarding the IAC charge, Professor Paris replied that she was not familiar with the charge, but the Senate’s purview was focused on academic matters.

Seeing no further questions, Professor Paris thanked the Senate for their time.

Senate President Kyr informed the Senate that each member of the Committee on Committees was responsible for three or four committees in the Tenth Year Review process. The IAC was not one of Professor Paris’ committees.

After both nominees had concluded their remarks, their names were placed on the overhead screen and Senate President Kyr called for any further nominations from the Senate floor. Seeing none, Senate President Kyr called for a vote, and the voting ballots were distributed by members of the Senate Nominating Committee. Senators were instructed to write the name of their nominee on the ballot, fold the ballot in half, and then submit their ballots to the Senate Parliamentarian. The Parliamentarian was responsible for counting the ballots and informing the Senate President of the winner. Senate President Kyr reminded those at the meeting that only Senators were allowed to vote in the election.

While the ballots were being distributed, Senate President Kyr asked if there were any Senators who had not signed in. All had signed in.

Senator John Bonine (Law) asked if Senate President Kyr was going to cast his vote, to which he replied that the Senate President only voted in the event of a tie.

After all ballots had been submitted, Senate Parliamentarian Paul Simonds (Anthropology Emeritus) counted the votes and reported the winner to Senate President Kyr who announced that Professor Margaret Paris was the newly elected Senate Vice President/President-Elect.

Senate President Kyr asked if Senate Vice President Paris would like to make any remarks, to which she offered a word of thanks to the Senate Nominating Committee and commented that she looked forward to working with the Senate for the remainder of the year and the year to come.

Senator Huaxin Lin (Mathematics) asked for the vote count to be stated before the Senate body, to which Senate President Kyr replied that that was not a customary practice. Senator Lin stated that there had been election disputes in the past and again asked for the results to be stated. Senate President Kyr replied that the election was not close enough to warrant reading the results aloud and that he would not do that. Senator Lin again requested that the results be read aloud, and he wanted to know how many votes had been cast and if the quorum requirement had been met. Senate President Kyr replied that the quorum had been met with twenty-seven votes. He then informed the Senate that if Senators wanted to know the exact results of the voting, they should make a motion asking for the vote tally to be released.

Senator Lin then commented that the results had been released in the past. Senate President Kyr replied that he would be happy to make a ruling on that statement after Senator Lin’s comment had been substantiated.

After consulting Robert’s Rules of Order, Senate Parliamentarian Simonds (Anthropology Emeritus) quoted “if the votes on an election were counted, the chair should first give the count before pronouncing the prevailing side.” Senate President Kyr then announced the vote count, which was four votes for Professor Christopher Phillips and twenty-three votes for Professor Margaret Paris.

Senator Taylor Allison (student Senator) asked Senate President Kyr what the quorum requirement was for the UO Senate, to which he replied it was half the membership plus one, which amounted to a requirement of twenty-six.

Senate President Kyr asked for any further questions before proceeding to the Reports portion of the meeting. Seeing none, he welcomed the representatives from the UO Police Department to the Senate floor.

4. REPORTS I

4.1 “Possible Police Arming”; UO Police Department

The female UO Police Department (UOPD) representative thanked the Senate for allowing them to return to the Senate with answers to questions that were asked at the December meeting. Discussions were currently taking place regarding arming police officers. She stated that the officers were limited in the services that they could provide because they were currently not armed. One of those services was response to critical service scenarios. In the event of an active shooter or armed and dangerous person on campus, the police officers were currently not equipped to respond to that type of incident. According to the female representative, other armed forces (Eugene Police Department) would have to be brought in to respond to that type of scenario. By arming UO police officers, the response time would be shorter than having to bring in an outside law enforcement officer.

She then mentioned that if a domestic violence case arose at Spenser View Apartments, the UOPD could not respond and would have to seek help elsewhere. The UOPD did not perform traffic stops on campus because of the safety risk to unarmed officers. She then commented that there was a traffic problem on campus with so many pedestrians and bicycling students, faculty, and staff. If the UOPD was armed, they could make traffic stops and educate the community on safe driving practices.

For prisoner transfers, the UOPD relied on the Eugene Police Department to take people to jail. This was a know fact by people who were arrested on campus, eighty-eight percent of which were non students. She believed that these people viewed the UO campus as a place of opportunity to commit criminal acts.

The UOPD wanted to conduct criminal investigations, but they could not go off campus to contact suspects, conduct interviews, and possibly complete a case because they were not armed. This was particularly difficult when it came to instances of sexual assault. The UOPD wanted to be as sensitive as possible with the victims of these crimes, but each investigation had to be passed on to the Eugene Police Department, which further traumatized victims who were asked to recount their incident a second time.

She then proceeded to answer questions that were asked by Senators at the December Senate meeting.

The first question was; I haven’t heard a gun shot on campus. Why do police need firearms on campus?

She replied that it was not violence that determined the need for arming police officers, but was a matter of what police officers were able to do. A full service police department needed to have a range of tools to do the job. Guns were a deterrent and sent a message that the UOPD would be taken more seriously.

Senator John Bonine (Law) was concerned that several items on the agenda would not be attended to, and wondered if the UOPD should give their report at a later date. Senate President Kyr asked the UOPD representatives if they would prefer to give their report at a later date.

Another UOPD representative commented that he was very sensitive to the Senate’s time and there were a number of public events of various sizes, times, and dates that were listed on the handout that had been circulated. He also mentioned that he was willing to meet at any time separately with individuals and/or groups to discuss the questions that were asked of them.

Senate President Kyr asked the UOPD if they would like to continue presenting their report or would they prefer to stop the report and complete it at the March Senate meeting, to which they replied that they would return in March. Senate President Kyr thanked them for their time.

4.1.1 Questions and Comments with Response

4.2 Senate Executive Review Committee Report on “Review of Executive Administrators” and “Faculty Input into Hiring Executive Administrators” (US12/13-03 & US12/13-04); Robert Kyr, Senate President

Senate President Kyr informed the Senate that the Senate Executive Review Committee was comprised of himself, as chair, Senator Bill Harbaugh (Economics), Douglas Blandy (Senior Vice Provost for Academic Affairs), Margaret Paris (Law), and Julie Newton (student). The committee had met several times and would continue to meet before they submit a final report to the Senate at the March meeting.

The committee was focusing its efforts on the following items:

1. A list of positions to be reviewed

2. Comprehensiveness of Review: Scope and Content
(a) Job Description
(b) Additional Responsibilities
(c) Additional Review Criteria (per position)
(d) Process
(e) Duration
(f) Solicitation of Input
            (i) Survey Vehicle
            (ii) Inside & Outside of the University (as appropriate)

3. Periodicity of Reviews
(a) Annual Review (by supervisor)
(b) Initial Feedback Review (timing?)
(c) Five Year Review (starts at beginning of fifth year)
(d) Catch-Up Reviews

4. Composition of Review Committee
(a) Staffing
(b) Size of Committee
(c) Membership

5. Confidentiality
(a) Legal Constraints
(b) Policy Considerations

6. Outcome & Reporting
(a) To Supervisor
(b) To Employee
(c) To Senate & Campus

7. Timing of the Provost’s Review

Senate President Kyr commented that the President had given him a list based on dates of hire, that the Provost would be reviewed during the upcoming fall term, 2013. He then called for questions from the Senate body.

Senator Kassia Dellabough (AAA) stated that as one of three people who worked on Russ Tomlin’s (former Senior Vice Provost for Academic Affairs) performance review, she would be more than happy to offer her feedback on how that process went. Senate President Kyr replied that a campus-wide survey was going to be sent out to help formulate the review process, and at that time, she would be more than welcome to submit her feedback and experience.

5. NEW BUSINESS II

5.1 Motion (Legislation Reconsidered): Performance Review of Provost James C. Bean; Nathan Tublitz, Professor (Biology)

Before the motion was considered, Senate President Kyr commented that the question had been asked of the Senate Executive Review Committee as to when the Provost was to be reviewed, to which Senate President Kyr had already replied that the Provost would be reviewed during the 2013 fall term. He then commented that the discussion could continue with Professor Tublitz’s motion and asked for questions and comments on the motion.

Professor Nathan Tublitz (Biology) commented that he was the maker of the motion and went on to say that the purpose of his motion was to speed up the review process, and was meant to bring faculty, staff, and students into the university decision making process. The Provost was the chief academic officer, and as such he had responsibilities, along with the President for academic decisions. Professor Tublitz stated that the current Provost had never been reviewed or gone through a formal hiring process, and as a result, the faculty was not able to provide adequate feedback. He then commented that tenure track faculty were reviewed every three years, and non-tenure track faculty were reviewed more often. He believed that a bad precedent was being set by not allowing administrators to go through a similar review. As a result of the lack of review, according to Professor Tublitz, a number of decisions had been made on campus which went against what many felt were appropriate decisions. He then listed several examples including the increase in students, the increase in student teacher ratios, the number of classrooms had not increased, and pay for faculty and staff had not kept up with inflation rates.

Professor Tublitz stated that his motion was the result of the lack of communication and consultation with the campus, and was made to bring the Provost’s review about as quickly as possible so that the campus could have input into not only the Provost’s performance, but to the decision making processes at the university. He then stated that the Senate was just informed that the review would not begin until next year, and commented that there was a history at the UO of preventing things from happening by delaying them repeatedly. He believed that it was time for that to stop and asked Senators to vote in favor of his motion.

Senate President Kyr thanked Professor Tublitz for his comments and called for questions on the motion.

Senator Bill Harbaugh (Economics) stated that as the maker of the original motion of the evaluation of administrators, he strongly supported Professor Tublitz’s motion for a quick and thorough review of the Provost. He believed that the passing of Professor Tublitz’s motion would strengthen Senator Harbaugh’s motion and would ensure that there was plenty of time to develop a strong policy for evaluating other administrators.

Senate President Kyr called for further discussion on the motion.

Professor Reza Rejaie (Computer and Information Science) stated that the idea of reviewing an individual made perfect sense and he thought Professor Tublitz’s point was well taken, but he heard earlier that the process for review was still being developed and asked if there was a process in place to review the Provost immediately, to which Senate President Kyr replied that there was no process for evaluation that had been recommended by the Senate Executive Review Committee. The review process was being formulated. Professor Rejaie asked if that process should be solidified before anyone was reviewed, to which Senate President Kyr replied that it would be very good if that happened.

Professor Tublitz agreed that there was no process that the Senate Executive Review Committee had made and put forward, but these reviews had gone on for years. He then commented that there may be a good reason to establish a process for the future, but in the case of the Provost’s review, he believed that it could be carried out immediately.

Senate President Kyr called for further discussion. Seeing none, he reiterated that if passed, the review of the Provost would begin immediately instead of taking place during the 2013 fall term.

Senator Huaxin Lin (Mathematics) asked if the Provost would be reviewed during the 2014 academic year, to which Senate President Kyr replied no, the Provost was currently scheduled to be reviewed during the 2013 fall term. Senator Lin then asked when the review would be completed if it took place during the fall term, to which Senate President Kyr replied that these types of reviews usually took four to six months. Senator Lin then asked if Professor Tublitz would consider extending the review period to April 30.

Professor Tublitz replied that the purpose of his motion was to have the review take place during the current academic year. He was happy to move the review period forward as long as the review took place during the current academic year. He then brought up the issue that the UO had recently voted to organize, which in his opinion suggested a real chasm between the faculty and administration, and he viewed his motion as an attempt to bring these factions together.

Senator Huaxin Lin (Mathematics) asked Professor Tublitz to recommend a date of completion for the Provosts review, to which Professor Tublitz replied that the review could be completed by mid June.

Senator Bill Harbaugh (Economics) moved that Professor Tublitz’s motion be amended and that the date of the review completion take place by the last Senate meeting in May. This motion was seconded. Senate President Kyr called for a period of discussion on the amendment.

Senator Huaxin Lin (Mathematics) asked Professor Tubliz if he agreed with Senator Harbaugh’s amendment, to which Professor Tublitz replied that he did.

Senate President Kyr informed the Senate that the President had the power to veto any Senate motion and had a sixty day grace period before reporting back to the Senate to explain his veto. He then mentioned that President Gottfredson had been extremely collaborative and was responding to Senate decisions within a few days of each meeting. He then asked President Gottfredson to comment on the motion if he felt it was appropriate, and Senate President Kyr mentioned that he did not know how long the review of the Provost would take. President Gottfredson replied that he did not care to comment at that time.

Senator Kassia Dellabough (AAA) commented that it took several months to carry out Russ Tomlin’s (former Senior Vice Provost for Academic Affairs) review and if the Senate wanted to perform this review properly it would need a considerable amount of time. She then commented that she did not know how much time it would take, but she was involved in Russ Tomlin’s review for at least three months gathering data.

Senate Vice President Margaret Paris (Law) stated that the Senate Executive Review Committee had discussed a four to six month time period for the review of the Provost, and she was concerned with the time component of Professor Tublitz’s motion. She urged the Senate to consider having the Provost’s review as one of the first reviews to take place under the new policy that was being formulated by the Senate Executive Review Committee.

Senator Bill Harbaugh (Economics) again spoke in support of Professor Tublitz’s motion, and stated that two month would be enough time for the review of the Provost.

Senator Huaxin Lin (Mathematics) was concerned that the May date was too soon and suggested that the review be carried out by the May deadline and reported to the Senate in September.

Senator John Bonine (Law) stated that conducting a review of the Provost by the end of March was absurd and he supported the amendment which extended the deadline to the final Senate meeting in May. He then requested that the period of discussion come to an end and voting on the amendment commence.

After a brief period of confusion regarding the date of the amendment, Senator Bill Harbaugh (Economics) confirmed that the dates of the motion would be changed to reflect the following: the date March 31 was changed to April 30 and the April report date was changed to the last Senate meeting in May. This was confirmed and read aloud by Senate President Kyr to the Senate body.

Senate President Kyr called for a vote on the amendment. A voice vote was taken, and the amendment passed with one abstention. He then called for other amendments to the motion.

A Senator called the motion to question, which Senate Parliamentarian Paul Simonds (Anthropology Emeritus) informed the Senate that this meant they would be voting on whether or not to vote on what was just passed, and there was no period of discussion. A voice vote was taken, and the motion to vote was passed with one nay vote. Senate President Kyr then called for a voice vote on Professor Tublitz’s amended motion. A voice vote was taken, and the motion passed with one nay vote.

Senator William Steiner (student Senator) offered a point of information and informed the Senate that calling a motion to question was not appropriate if no one was on the speakers list, as the motion automatically went to a vote. He then commented that this stipulation was in Robert’s Rules of Order. He then repeated that if no called to question, and if no one was on the speaker’s list, the motion went to a vote.

Senate President Kyr asked both Senator Steven Pologe (Music & Dance) and Senator Bill Harbaugh (Economics) if their motions could be placed on the agenda of the March meeting, to which they both agreed.  

5.2 Motion (Legislation): Senate Review of Teaching Evaluation Process; Steven Pologe, University Senator and Professor (School of Music)

5.3 Motion (Resolution): Information Regarding the UO Affiliated Golf Course; Bob Doppelt, Adjunct Assoc. Professor (PPPM) Presented by Bill Harbaugh (Economics), UO Senator

6. REPORTS II

6.1 IAC Report on Random Drug Testing OAR; Brian McWhorter, Chair, Intercollegiate Athletics Committee (IAC)

Professor Brian McWhorter (Music & Dance) stated that he had been asked to read his report to the Senate, which was comprised of questions that the IAC had been asked to consider by the Senate. The questions were primarily regarding scholarships and grants and aide relating to student athletes and the implications surrounding these issues.

Due to time constraints, Senate President Kyr asked that Professor McWhorter’s report be placed on the March Senate meeting and commented that he would look into scheduling an additional Senate meeting as there were many important issues at hand.

He then stated that all reports that were to be given at the February meeting would be posted to the Senate website. Senator Huaxin Lin (Mathematics) moved that the meeting be adjourned.

Professor Nathan Tublitz (Biology) stated that before the meeting was adjourned, he wanted to make sure that all notices of motion were accepted by the Senate President. Senate President Kyr replied that all notices of motion had been accepted.

6.2 Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Respectful Workplace; Emilio Hernandez, Chair

6.3 Data and Documents for IAC & Clarifying FERPA; Brian McWhorter, Chair, IAC

6.4 Study Space Prioritization; Harlan Mechling, ASUO Director of Academic Affairs

6.5 ASUO Report; ASUO President

6.6 UA Senate Liaison Committee; Gordon Sayre, Professor (English)

7. ANNOUNCEMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE FLOOR

7.1 Notice of Motion (Resolution): Marriage Equity; Ben Bowman, ASUO Senator

7.2 Notice of Motion (Legislation): Meaningful Contributions from the Athletics Department to Presidential Scholarships; Bill Harbaugh (Economics), UO Senator

7.3 Notice of Motion (Legislation): Clarifying the Wording of Graduate Degrees; John Bonine (Law), UO Senator

7.4 Notice of Motion (Resolution): Senate Support for the Addition of an Ombuds Office at the UO; Emilio Hernandez (Chair), Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Respectful Workplace

7.5 Notice of Motion (Legislation): Academic Credit for Military Science Courses; Frank Stahl, Professor Emeritus (Biology)

7.6 Notice of Motion (Legislation): Term Limits for the Office of the Senate President; Senate Executive Committee

7.7 Notice of Motion (Legislation): Amendment to US12/13-13, UO Representation on the Interinstitutional Faculty Senate (IFS)

7.8 Notice of Motion (Legislation): Union Negotiations Regarding Academic Freedom; Roxann Prazniak, CHC & University Senator

7.9 Notice of Motion (Legislation): Union Negotiations Regarding Shared Governance; Roxann Prazniak, CHC & University Senator

8. ADJOURNMENT

Senate President Kyr called the February 13, 2013 meeting of the University Senate to a close at 5:09PM.