Minutes of the UO Senate Meeting for March 13, 2013

Minutes of the UO Senate Meeting 13 March, 2013

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

Present:

Absent:

Excused:

1. CALL TO ORDER

Senate President Kyr (Music & Dance) called the meeting of the University Senate for March 13, 2013 to order at 3:06PM in room 101 of the Knight Library. He welcomed all Senators to the meeting and stated that this meeting was of crucial importance as there were five motions to consider.

1.1 Approval of the Minutes of the February 13, 2013 Senate Meeting

Senate President Kyr called for any corrections to the February 13, 2013 meeting minutes. Seeing none, he approved the minutes and moved on to the State of the University address.

2. STATE OF THE UNIVERSITY

2.1 Remarks by Robert Kyr, Senate President

Senate President Kyr informed the Senate that a new protocol system was in place. He had been meeting with various constituencies including the ASUO who shared with him how they ran their Senate meeting. He thanked the students for sharing their ideas and processes with him. From these meetings, a new seating system was developed wherein all Senators would sit in the raked seating area and all non-senators now had their own seating area. This new system would help with facilitating microphone distribution.

Senate President Kyr commented that both the President and Provost were very sorry that they could not attend the meeting. The President was attending a trustees meeting in southern California, and the Provost was traveling. They would both attend the April Senate meeting.

Senate President Kyr stated that his remarks would focus on Senate protocol regarding how a meeting was run, and respectful dialogue. He commented that respectful dialogue was extremely important and that several people had come to him after attending/viewing Senate meetings and discussed how dialogue had evolved on campus. He stated that the Senate must be the model for respectful dialogue. Blurting out, sub-vocalizations, checking email, and other distractions were not acceptable at Senate meetings. He reminded Senators that they were educators and supporters of a university that they loved, and when students brought forward behavior such as those mentioned above, they needed be addressed and dealt with appropriately. Senate President Kyr then mentioned several points of change regarding Senate protocol.

The first protocol change was the new seating arrangement. Senators were instructed to sit in the main seating area and guests were instructed to sit in the seating area off to the side.

The second protocol change was no standing when making comments. Senators were to remain seated when speaking, and a microphone would be delivered to them. Guests/visitors were to approach their microphone when commenting.

The third protocol change was regarding name tags. All Senators were asked to wear name tags during the meetings. Senate President Kyr mentioned that name tags allowed Senators from different constituencies to get to know each other, and it also helped him and Senate Vice President Margaret Paris (Law) in addressing those who were speaking.

The fourth protocol change was the institution of a speakers list. Senate President Kyr thanked the students for their insight regarding this change. Senate Vice President Margaret Paris was the monitor of the speaker’s list. When a Senator wished to speak, they were instructed to raise their hand and the speaking order would be recorded by the Senate Vice President who would then transfer the names to a Google Share, which would keep track of the speaking order during discussion.

The fifth protocol change involved time restrictions during comments. Senate President Kyr stated that a two minute time limit was not going to be enforced, but after two minutes of comments, the speaker would be informed and were then instructed to wrap up their discussion out of respect for their colleagues. Senate Vice President Margaret Paris asked if Senators could raise their nametags when they raised their hands to speak as this would help her coordinate the speaker’s list and would help her to learn the names of Senators.

Senate President Kyr reminded Senators that when they presented a motion (while seated), they must move the motion to the Senate floor, and then ask for a second. The Senate President would then read the motion, which would be projected on the screen. The entire motion would be read on the Senate floor.

He then commented that all protocol changes were in accordance to Robert’s Rules of Order, Newly Revised. He then asked the Senate to not enter into a debate about process, but they should trust that all protocol changes were in accordance to Robert’s Rules of Order. Senators would have time to comment on the new system via a survey that was going to be sent out during the next week. He then stated that Senators could also contact him directly by phone or email and encouraged them to do so.

3. NEW BUSINESS

3.1 Winter Curriculum Report (Motion for Legislation): Paul Engelking, Chair; Committee on Courses

Senate President Kyr invited Professor Paul Engelking (Chemistry) to present the Winter Curriculum Report to the Senate body. Professor Engelking remarked that the report had only one correction that he was aware of, which was regarding Anthropology 347 Archeology of Ancient Cities. The course would now be effective spring term 2013. He then asked for any additional corrections from the floor. Seeing none, he moved that 2013 Winter Curriculum Report be approved as presented. Senate President Kyr called for a second. The motion was seconded. He then called for a vote on the motion. A voice vote was taken, and the motion passed unanimously.

Senate President Kyr thanked Professor Engelking and the Committee on Courses for their hard work in preparing the Curriculum Report each term, to which Professor Engelking apologized for being late for the meeting, and stated that he had just come from another meeting regarding a newly approved electronic course system that would hopefully be implemented in just over a year, which would save everyone on the Committee on Courses a great deal of time. Senate President Kyr thanked him for delivering the good news.

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

Senate President Kyr invited Emilio Hernandez (Institutional Equity and Diversity) to present his motion. Mr. Hernandez stated that he would be handing the conversation over to David Hubin (Senior Assistant to the President), as Mr. Hubin, who was a member of the Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Respectful Workplace, had information from the President.

Senate President Kyr asked Mr. Hernandez to move the motion and to ask for a second. Mr. Hernandez moved the motion to the Senate floor, and the motion was seconded. Senate President Kyr read the motion aloud to the Senate body, which can be found at the link above.

After reading the motion, Senate President Kyr asked David Hubin to present any additional information on the motion. Mr. Hubin stated that on behalf of the President, he accepted the intent of the motion, which was an impulse that came from both the Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Respectful Workplace and from other quarters across campus including the FAC (Faculty Advisory Council). He then commented that three weeks prior, President Gottfredson spoke with Mr. Hubin regarding the establishment of an Ombuds Office and he was instructed to speak with Jamie Moffitt (Vice President of Finance & Administration, Chief Financial Officer) and prepare a budget and job description. According to Mr. Hubin, this position was a very high priority for the President. Mr. Hubin had been collecting job descriptions from national organizations and comparator institutions. He then commented that the process would be completed during the spring term to ensure participatory engagement, and the Ombuds Office would be in place by the beginning of the fall term. Mr. Hubin reiterated that the administration welcomed the resolution, and it would be enacted.

Senate President Kyr called for a period of discussion on the motion.

The first comment came from Senator Randy Sullivan (Chemistry). He thanked Mr. Hubin for his comments and remarked that Mr. Hubin had mentioned the UAUO (United Academics University of Oregon), but he did not see that group listed in the language of the motion. Mr. Hubin stated that he thought the UAUO should be included in the motion. Senator Sullivan offered a friendly amendment to the motion and asked that the UAUO be added to numbers five and six of the motion.

Senate President Kyr then called for a second. A second was given, and he called for a period of discussion on the amendment.

Senator Richard Margerum (PPPM) asked if the advisory board established by the Resolution was a part of the original proposal, as according to him, the motion did not state what the advisory board did. He was concerned that the advisory board might overlap with other advisory boards that already existed.

Senate President Kyr reminded Senator Margerum that the amendment was being discussed and all other questions would be attended to after voting had taken place on the amendment.

Senator Pedro Garcia-Caro (Romance Languages) asked if the amendment involved removing the group AAUP and substituting it for the group UAUO, or were they leaving AAUP and adding UAUO. Senate President Kyr asked Senator Sullivan to restate his amendment for clarification.

Senator Sullivan stated that he would like to add the group UAUO to the list of campus constituencies represented by a bargaining agreement in numbers five and six of the motion.

Senator Steven Pologe (Music & Dance) asked if Senator Sullivan’s amendment was consistent with David Hubin’s remarks, to which Mr. Hubin replied that it was consistent.

Senator Michael Dreiling (Sociology) wanted to make it clear that the AAUP was subsumed under UAUO and requested that the group AAUP be substituted with UAUO instead of merely adding UAUO to the list. He then asked if Senator Sullivan was willing to modify his request, to which he replied that he was. Senate President Kyr asked if anyone objected to the substitution. Seeing no objections, Senate President Kyr called for a vote on the amendment. A voice vote was taken, and the amendment was approved unanimously.

Senate President Kyr reopened discussion on the motion.

Senator Kassia Dellabough (AAA) commented that the motion was an excellent direction for the university to take and she wholeheartedly supported the motion.

Senator Richard Margerum (PPPM) revisited his question regarding the role of the advisory board created by the motion. He wanted to know what the role and responsibilities of the advisory board was.

Senate President Kyr asked Senator Margerum if his question was addressed to David Hubin.

Emilio Hernandez (Institutional Equity and Diversity) replied that the board was put into place by the Committee on Committees, and David Hubin added that the board’s role and responsibilities would be addressed by the Committee on Committees.

Senator Huaxin Lin (Mathematics) wanted to know how large the Ombuds office would be, to which Emilio Hernandez replied that the Respectful Workplace Committee was considering more than one individual, but an entire building of workers was not required to fulfill the position. The size of the office was to be determined, and comparator institutions with Ombuds offices had two, three, and four person offices. Senator Lin asked if the Ombuds office would potentially grow to ten or eleven people, to which Mr. Hernandez replied that he was not sure how large the office would be, but the Committee on Committees would be handling that decision in conjunction with the Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Respectful Workplace.

David Hubin commented that the Ombuds person would need a support staff, but the details had not been worked out. He then commented that all staffing decisions regarding the Ombuds office would be made with consultation of the Senate.

Senator Ali Emami (Finance) stated that he was not sure if the Senate Rules Committee was allowed to bring a motion to the floor without a financial impact statement. He then asked if that was a proper practice. Senate President Kyr replied that this particular office had been approved, to which Senator Emami rephrased his question and asked if a motion could be brought to the Senate floor without a know financial impact statement. Senate President Kyr replied that this could happen if the funding had been approved, which in this case, it had. He then asked David Hubin if the funding had been approved for the creation of the Ombuds office, to which Mr. Hubin replied that the funding had been approved, and he mentioned that the Senate was voting on a resolution, not a piece of legislation, and resolutions merely supported or did not support a course of action.

Seeing no further discussion, Senate President Kyr called for a vote on the motion. A voice vote was taken and the motion was passed with one nay vote. Senate President Kyr thanked the Senate Ad Hoc Committee for the hard work and dedication in their efforts to create a respectful workplace on campus.

3.3 Motion (Legislation): Clarifying the Wording of UO Diplomas; John Bonine, Professor (Law) & UO Senator

Senate President Kyr invited Senator John Bonine (Law) to present his motion to the Senate body. It was determined that Senator Bonine was not in attendance and Senate President Kyr moved on to the next agenda item.

3.4 Motion (Legislation): Establishment of a Provost Search Process; Bill Harbaugh, Professor (Economics) & UO Senator

Senator Bill Harbaugh (Economics) moved his motion to the Senate floor. He called for a second, and the motion was seconded. Senate President Kyr then read the motion aloud to the Senate body, which can be found at the link above.

After reading the motion, Senate President Kyr told Senator Harbaugh that he could now provide any additional information regarding his motion.

Senator Harbaugh apologized for the length of his motion and stated that the Senate Executive Review Committee (SERC) had begun to develop a policy on establishing a review process for academic administrators. This process was ongoing, and in the mean time, Provost James C. Bean had resigned as Provost effective July 1, 2013. He believed that because of this resignation, there needed to be a process for instituting an Interim Provost that followed a set of reasonable rules. According to Senator Harbaugh, this motion was originally developed by Professor Nathan Tublitz (Biology). Senator Harbaugh was under the impression that the administration was supportive of the motion and asked Senate President Kyr to comment further on that impression.

Senate President Kyr replied that the composition of the committee established by the motion was almost identical to the composition that was offered up by the President’s Office. Senate President Kyr re-read section five of the motion and commented that any changes required by the President would be debatable and discussable.

Senate President Kyr opened the floor for discussion on the motion.

Senator Christopher Sinclair (Mathematics) proposed that the motion be amended to include tenure-track faculty under the membership portion of the motion. The amendment was seconded and Senate President Kyr called for a period of discussion on the amendment.

Senator John Bonine (Law) was concerned that the addition of tenure-track and tenured might allow for a committee of all tenure-track faculty with no tenured faculty.

Senate President Kyr asked Senator Sinclair to repeat his amendment. He replied that the sentence should read “eight shall be tenured or tenure-track faculty.”

Senate President Kyr called for further discussion on the amendment.

Senator Harinder Kaur Khalsa (Romance Languages) thought it might be a good idea to include two non-tenure track faculty members; an officer of instruction and an officer of research.

Senate President Kyr asked her to hold her amendment until the first amendment had been dealt with and called for further discussion on Senator Sinclair’s amendment. Seeing no further discussion, Senate President Kyr called for a vote on the amendment. A voice vote was taken and the amendment was approved unanimously.

Senator Michael Dreiling (Sociology) yielded his statement to Senator Harinder Khalsa (Romance Languages) so that she could present her amendment. Senator Khalsa’s amendment was added to the end of Senator Sinclair’s amendment and included the following language: “two shall be NTTF, one officer of instruction and one officer of research.” Her amendment was seconded, and Senate President Kyr called for a period of discussion on the motion.

Senator William Steiner (Student Senator) asked Senator Khalsa if her amendment would change the overall number of committee members, to which she replied that it would. The number of committee members increased from eight to ten.

Senator John Bonine (Law) asked for a point of clarification on the correct number of committee members. He then suggested that the word teaching be eliminated and the number of committee members be raised to ten and asked Senator Khalsa if she accepted his friendly amendment, to which she replied that she did.

Senate President Kyr asked if there were any objections to Senator Bonine’s friendly amendment. Senate President Kyr stated Senator Khalsa’s amendment which was: “The PSC (Provost Search Committee) shall consist of ten faculty, including the Senate President or designee, with none holding administrative positions above the department chair level. Eight shall be tenured or tenure-track, and in addition, two shall be NTTF's, an Officer of Instruction and an Officer of Research.” He then called for further discussion on the amendment.

Senator Karen Estlund (Library) called for a further revision of the amendment to include one librarian and raise the committee membership to eleven. Senate President Kyr asked Senator Khalsa if she would accept Senator Estlund’s friendly amendment, to which she replied that she would. Senate President Kyr asked if there was any objection to the friendly amendment. Seeing none, he called for further discussion on the amendment.

Senator Bonine (Law) asked if all committee additions could be heard before the motion was amended again. Senate President Kyr accepted this request and asked if there were any further additions to the committee membership. There was one further addition, which was introduced as a separate amendment.

Seeing no further discussion on Senator Khalsa’s amendment, Senate President Kyr called for a vote on the amendment. A voice vote was taken, and the amendment was approved unanimously.

Senate President Kyr called for further discussion on the motion.

Senator Randy Sullivan (Chemistry) stated he had several constitutional concerns regarding the motion. He commented that the motion was labeled as legislation, and legislation did not recommend or request, it directed. He then commented that if the Senate wanted to suggest, they should make the motion a resolution, and believed that the Senate was on tricky constitutional ground. Senator Sullivan reiterated his previous comment that legislation did not suggest, it directed.

Senator Sullivan then commented on point five of the motion. He believed that point five allowed Senate legislation to be amended outside of the Senate, and stated that this was a dangerous precedent. According to Senator Sullivan, Senate legislation could only be changed on the floor of the Senate. He stated that point five was reasonable, but believed it was constitutionally dangerous. He recommended that the motion be changed to a resolution if the President was going to have the authority to edit the motion outside of the Senate.

Senate President Kyr asked if Senator Sullivan was proposing an amendment, to which he replied that he was.

Senator Bill Harbaugh (Economics) offered a point of clarification and stated that he would be happy to change the motion to a resolution, but if it was changed, he wanted to keep point five, to which Senator Sullivan replied that if the motion was a resolution, point five could remain.

Senate President Kyr asked if there was any objection to Senator Sullivan’s amendment. Seeing none, the amendment passed.

Senator Tracy Bars (OA Senator) yielded her comments to Senator David Landrum (OA Senator). Senator Landrum stated that based on the number of officers of administration (OAs) that fell directly or indirectly in the Provost’s portfolio he requested an additional representative and asked that the number of OAs on the PSC be increased to two.

Senate President Kyr asked if Senator Landrum was proposing an amendment, to which he replied that he was. His amendment was seconded, and Senate President Kyr asked him to state his amendment. Senator Landrum’s amendment was as follows: Under item 1 membership, change the wording “one officer of administration” to “two officers of administration.”

Senate President Kyr called for a period of discussion on the amendment.

Senator Charles Martinez (Education) stated that the officer of Administration category was a broad category, and some positions already on the list might be officers of administration. He used the example of the financial and academic administrator positions also being officers of administration. Deans and tenured faculty were also officers of administration, and because of this, he believed that there was a need for clarification.

Senate President Kyr asked if Senator Landrum would like to speak to Senator Martinez’s comment, to which he replied both positions that Senator Martinez mentioned were non-voting positions. Senator Martinez acknowledged that fact, and replied that both positions were officers of administration positions, and the Senate needed to be aware of the overlap.

Senate President Kyr asked Senator Martinez if he was suggesting a revision to the amendment, to which Senator Martinez replied that he did not know exactly what the revision would be, but he believed there was work to be done on the set of role designees to clarify the number of voices from officers of administration being asked for by the Senate and in which voices those categories counted.

Senate President Kyr called for further discussion on the amendment.

Senator Huaxin Lin (Mathematics) stated that adding two faculty members to PSC was a small change, but adding one officer of administration to the PSC was a large change.

Senator John Bonine (Law) jokingly stated that a camel was a horse built by a committee. He then commented that all of the clarifications were becoming confusing and recommended that Senate President Kyr find a way to balance out the membership. He recommended voting against the amendment and stated that there were enough people on the PSC to get the job done. The committee was not in charge of selecting the Provost, but provided a recommendation. He then stated that the faculty was the main responsibility of the Provost.

Senator Bill Harbaugh (Economics) supported Senator Bonine’s comments and stated that the intent of the motion was to ensure that faculty had a voice in selecting the next Provost. He then stated that OAs had annual contracts and were subjected to much more scrutiny than members of the faculty were, which was concerning.

Senate President Kyr asked if Senator Harbaugh was withdrawing his motion, to which Senator Harbaugh replied that he was not. He was supporting Senator Bonine’s comments and opposing Senator Landrum’s amendment.

Senator Roger Adkins (OA Senator) believed that adding an additional officer of administration was fair due to the fact that there were over twelve hundred OAs on campus. He was not asking to be represented proportionately to the faculty, and of the twelve hundred, eleven hundred were not high ranking administrators. He stated that he agreed with Senator Harbaugh’s sentiment that OAs had annual contracts, but according to Senator Adkins, this made it even more important that OAs had an additional member on the committee.

Senator Christopher Sinclair (Mathematics) commented that the Provost was the chief academic officer of the university, and even though many if not all OAs reported to the Provost, the Provost was the chief academic officer, not the chief administrative officer. He did not support adding an additional OA to the PSC.

Senator Roger Adkins disagreed with Senator Sinclair’s comment, and stated that OAs were also members of the faculty. He commented that he was an academic officer of the university.

Senate President Kyr called for further discussion on the amendment.

Senate Vice President Margaret Paris (Law) stated that the discussion had come to a point where it seemed as if the Senate was not willing to add an additional OA to the PSC. She stated that every other group had had their amendment for additional members approved, and she spoke in support of adding an additional OA to the PSC.

Senator Michael Dreiling (Sociology) asked Senator Landrum if he would be open to a modification of his amendment to include the language as follows: four officers of administration, one dean or associate dean, one officer of administration, one academic administrator, and one financial administrator. Senator Dreiling commented that while this language did not substantively change the motion, he believed it provided a greater sense of clarity to the motion.

Senator John Bonine offered a point of clarification. He asked if Senator Dreiling intended on removing the non-voting label associated with the academic and financial administrators, to which Senator Dreiling replied that he was not proposing that the non-voting label be removed.

Senate President Kyr asked Senator Landrum if he accepted Senator Dreiling’s revised language to his amendment, to which he replied that he did not accept the revised language.

Senate President Kyr closed the period of discussion on the amendment and called for a vote to add an additional officer of administration to the PSC. A voice vote was taken and the results were inconclusive. Senate President Kyr called for a hand vote. A hand vote was taken and the amendment was passed with the result of 23 in favor and 14 opposed.

Senator President Kyr called for further discussion on the motion.

Senator John Bonine (Law) called the motion to question to end the debate on the motion. His request was seconded, and Senate President Kyr asked if there were any objections to ending the debate. Seeing none, he called for a voice vote. A voice vote was taken and the debate was closed unanimously. He then called for a voice vote on the motion. A voice vote was taken and the motion was approved unanimously.

3.3 Motion (Legislation): Clarifying the Wording of UO Diplomas; John Bonine, Professor (Law) & UO Senator

Senate President Kyr asked Senator John Bonine (Law) to present his motion to the Senate. Senator Bonine moved his motion to the Senate floor. His motion was seconded, and Senate President Kyr read the motion to the Senate body, which can be found at the link above.

Senator John Bonine yielded his comments to Barbara Altmann (Vice Provost for Academic Affaris), and then remarked that many people were unaware of the language printed on diplomas. Once that was discovered, the Senate Executive Committee thought that the field of study should be included on the diploma instead of a general label of Master of Arts. Senator Bonine worked with Vice Provost Altmann on the language of diplomas and on the language of the motion.

Vice Provost Altmann stated that Senator Bonine brought to her attention the LLM (Master of Law) degree in environmental resource law. According to Vice Provost Altmann, the great preponderance of students in that degree program were from outside North America, and the value of the diploma needed to be considered in comparison to the value of the transcript. It was important for international students that their diploma stated their specialization of study. Senator Bonine presented several diplomas from schools abroad.

Vice Provost Altmann worked closely with Sue Eveland (the Registrar) and it was determined that changing the language of diplomas was an easy fix. Half of all AAU (American Association of Universities) printed diplomas with a greater specificity of degree language. The university was prepared to move forward with the LLM degree and she stated that a discussion needed to take place on whether or not this was something that other departments were interested in implementing. She believed that all graduate programs should have this higher degree of specificity, but Vice Provost Altmann wanted those who might have differing opinions to have an opportunity to express themselves.

Senator Bonine remarked that there was no set timeline for implementing this process, but his motion was meant to set things in motion. He was very surprised to discover that there was no policy on the language of diplomas at the university.

Senate President Kyr called for a period of discussion on the motion.

Senator Christopher Sinclair (Mathematics) stated that he supported Senator Bonine’s motion and wanted to know if this process would be retroactive for university alumni. Senator Bonine stated that in a previous version of the motion, he included a retroactive clause, but he did not feel that that decision needed to be made at that time.

Vice Provost Altmann supported Senator Bonine’s comment and remarked that there was no technical impediment to reissuing an older diploma with updated language.

Senator Kassia Dellabough (AAA) stated that the Senate Ad Hoc Committee created by the motion would handle the details regarding the degree process and asked Senate President Kyr if the Senate could end discussion and proceed to a vote.

Senate President Kyr called for final discussion on the motion.

Senator Randy Sullivan (Chemistry) quoted the first paragraph of the motion, which he disagreed with and stated that the governance of the university lay in the hands of the President and the Professors. He then commented that the relationship was fairly complex and faculty governance pertained to academic matters. Senator Sullivan stated that the second paragraph of the motion was well crafted and the first paragraph was erroneous and should be deleted.

Senate President Kyr asked if he was suggesting an amendment, to which Senator Sullivan replied that he was, and suggested deleting the first paragraph of the motion.

Senate Parliamentarian Paul Simonds (Anthropology Emeritus) remarked that WHERE AS statements were outside of the scope of motions and could not be edited on the Senate floor. The only portion of the motion that could be edited came after the words BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED. As such, Senator Sullivan’s amendment was withdrawn.

Senator Huaxin Lin (Mathematics) asked Senator Bonine how specific each degree would be altered, to which Senator Bonine replied that he was not going to answer that question, as the motion established a committee that would be responsible for handling those issues.

Senator Bonine replied to Senator Sullivan’s comment regarding the UO Charter and quoted Oregon Revised Statute 352.010, which states that “The University is governed by the President and the Professors.” He then commented that the governance language came from the statute, and since it was near and dear to his heart, and predominant in his opinion, he decided to quote it in his motion.

Senate President Kyr called for further discussion on the motion. Seeing none, he called for a vote on the motion. A voice vote was taken, and the motion was passed unanimously.

3.5 Motion (Legislation): Senate-Administration Joint Review of the Office of Research, Innovation, & Graduate Education (RIGE); Bill Harbaugh, Professor (Economics) & UO Senator

Senator Bill Harbaugh (Economics) moved his motion to the Senate floor. It was seconded by Senator Huaxin Lin (Mathematics), and Senate President Kyr read the motion to the Senate body. The motion can be found at the link above.

After reading the motion, Senator Harbaugh commented that his motion stemmed from activity taking place in the Office of Research, Innovation, & Graduate Education. A committee was formed by Provost Bean in November to deal with issues that had arisen in that office. That committee issued the RAP Report, which was given to Provost Bean in January and called for further action. According to Senator Harbaugh, no further action had taken place. His motion was acting as a prod to get the administration moving on issues taking place in this office. He assumed that the administration was in favor of his motion and asked Senate President Kyr to explain to the Senate the extent of administrative support for his motion.

Senate President Kyr remarked that the President was in favor of this review because of the issues related to PI’s, among others.

Senator Harbaugh commented that the scope of the review was very broad, and he recommended that the university hire a new Vice President for Research, Innovation, & Graduate Education. Senate President Kyr stated that that recommendation was not in the motion, and the Senate would not be voting on that point.

Senate President called for a period of discussion on the motion.

Senator Reza Rejaie (Computer Science) commented that Senator Harbaugh had mentioned PI’s and he then commented that not all faculty members had research funding to become a PI. He wanted to know if it made a difference if the specific subset of faculty that were on the committee created by the motion were PI. He believed that PI faculty might have more to say during the review.

Senator Harbaugh agreed that this was a good idea and he hoped that the President and Senate President would appoint mostly PI’s to the committee.

Senator Gina Psaki (Romance Languages) stated that she served on the faculty research award committee, which was an award administered through the Office of Research, Innovation, & Graduate Education, to which all faculty could apply. Because of this, she believed it would be wise if other faculty, not only PI’s served on the committee. PI’s should be well represented, but so should the rest of the faculty.

Professor Edward Kameenui (Education) stated that he served as the chair of the search advisory council appointed in October by the Provost. He read a statement sent to him by President Gottfredson on March 8 at 10:30am. He wanted to make himself available to the Senate advisory committee as a member of the research advisory panel created by the Provost. He then read the statement from President Gottfredson, which can be found below:

“Earlier this year, the Provost appointed a research advisory panel to explore how we can better support the research mission of the University of Oregon. Based on their inquiry, their report makes a number of important recommendations, which we find consistent with our views about the importance of research and creative activity at the university. We intend to pursue these recommendations with the assistance of the vice presidents, deans, and faculty. We also welcome any additional comments on the recommendations of our research support and infrastructure even as we begin these recommendations.”

Professor Kameenui stated that the charge that the Provost gave the RAP panel was to explore the problem space and determine if there was a problem and what its character was. He reiterated Senator Harbaugh’s comment that the motion before the Senate was very broad, and he believed that the work load ahead for the committee created by the motion was enormous, and given scheduling and time constraints, he encouraged the Senate to base its view on the recommendations of the RAP Report and continuing from that point. Senate President Kyr thanked Professor Kameenui for his comments.

Senator Charles Martinez (Education) stated that Professor Kammeenui’s comments were consistent with his concerns regarding Senator Harbaugh’s motion. Senator Martinez believed that it would be difficult to appraise the committee membership if the nature of the review was unknown. He was concerned regarding the level of broadness in the wording of the motion.

Senate President Kyr offered a point of clarification and informed the Senate that in the language of the motion, FAC meant Faculty Advisory Council and the Senate Executive Review Committee was the committee established to conduct the review of the Provost.

Senator Martinez asked if these committees would be undertaking the review of the office, to which Senator Harbaugh replied that this motion stemmed from a previous motion of a vote of no confidence in Vice President Kimberly Espy (Vice President for Research and Innovation and Dean of the Graduate School), which was modified intentionally, and removed the vote of no confidence clause in favor of a broad review of the office. Senator Harbaugh stated that a vote for this motion would put the Senate’s trust in President Gottfredson, Senate President Kyr, and the faculty to follow through on this review.

Senator Martinez thought that the tenor of the review was regarding the performance of Vice President Espy and asked Senator Harbaugh why that was not included in the motion. Senator Harbaugh replied that he agreed to change the wording of the motion because he did not think the Senate had the expertise regarding this issue to make an informed decision on a vote of confidence or no confidence. A review seemed like the only alternative to making progress on this issue.

Senator Reza Rejaie (Computer Science) asked if this motion concerned Vice President Espy or her office.

Senate President Kyr offered a point of clarification and informed the Senate body that the Senate could not perform a personnel review, to which Senator Rejaie asked if this review was different from the review of the Provost, which was discussed at the February Senate meeting. Senate President Kyr replied that the Senate could review an office and could participate in reviews that were confidential only. Senator Harbaugh’s review was an open review of an office. He then called for further discussion on the motion.

Professor Edward Kammeenui (Education) asked if it would be helpful if the Search Advisory Panel’s report was made available to the Senate for background and to determine the viability of the motion.

Senator Harbaugh stated that to his knowledge, the report was not available to the public, but should be. He then commented that it should be the starting point for the committees work.

Senator John Bonine (Law) stated that he would be abstaining on the motion because he did not know what all the issues were regarding the motion. He wished the Senate would not delay on things that could have been brought to their attention prior to the meeting.

Senator Michael Dreiling (Sociology) acknowledged the generality of the motion and the questions that had arisen in wake of that awareness. He then commented that clearly there was a subtext present and there was need for investigation, more information, and clarification that could only be obtained by a general inquiry. Senator Dreiling remarked that the Senate did not have the tools necessary to achieve this in terms of votes and he believed the situation called upon the Senate to connect with the point of transparency in their governance roles as faculty members. He then stated that he would be voting in favor of the motion as he believed a review would bring a greater sense of transparency to the university’s system of shared governance.

Senator Charles Martinez (Education) stated that given the presentation from Professor Edward Kammeenui (Education) regarding the RAP Report and the fact that it was not available for viewing by the public, he felt that a possible way to go forward would be for the committee’s work to begin with the RAP Report, now that it would be available to the public.

Senator Bill Harbaugh (Economics) stated that he did not know how the work of the committee would proceed, but he expected that it would operate in good faith. The RAP Report was valuable information and was a fine starting off document for the committee to begin with. He then commented that the motion should not be delayed because the Senate had not seen the RAP Report.

Senator Randy Sullivan (Chemistry) stated that the Senate could have their cake and eat it too! The motion established a committee, which according to Senator Sullivan could be directed by the Senate when new information became available. He recommended passing the motion, and if a need arose for further direction in the future, the Senate could act on that need at a later date.

Senate President Kyr called for further discussion. The motion was called to question, and a voice vote was taken. The call to question was passed with one nay vote, and the period of discussion on the motion ended.

Senate President Kyr called for a voice vote on the motion. A voice vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously. Senate President Kyr was very pleased with how the meeting went and complimented all in attendance for their respectful dialogue and excellent discussions.  

4. OPEN DISCUSSION

There was no open discussion portion of the Senate meeting.

5. REPORTS

5.1 Summary of Reports and Postings; Robert Kyr, Senate President

Senate President Kyr reminded Senators to be alert. Emails were being sent out with reports attached regarding upcoming events in the Senate, which included the Tenth Year Review of University Standing Committees, the three foundational policies for the university (Academic Freedom and Freedom of Speech Policy, Facilities Use Policy, and Legal Representation Policy), and at least eleven additional motion that had been given notice at previous Senate meetings. In order to balance these many items, there would be timeline restrictions to motion submission. The Reports portion of the Senate meeting would be done online under the Reports portion of the Senate website and sent out through email so that Senators would always have access to Senate reports.

Regarding the UO Police Department, Senate President Kyr stated that he was sending Senators a letter from the UOPD stating that Senators could meet with UOPD representatives to discuss the issue of arming officers at any time. He then asked Senators to send him their questions or concerns via email or phone at any time.

6. ANNOUNCEMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE FLOOR

6.1 Notice of Motion (Resolution): Comparator Study of Senate Agenda Time; Christopher Sinclair (Mathematics), UO Senator

Senate President Kyr announced the notice of motion to the Senate body, and called for any further comments from the Senate floor.

David Hubin (Senior Assistant to the President) spoke as chair of the Distinguished Service Award Committee and informed the Senate that the committee would be having an awards reception for last years recipient of the Distinguished Service Award immediately following the April 10, 2013 Senate meeting in the Integrated Science Building.

Senator Kassia Dellabough (AAA) applauded Senate President Kyr’s efforts in realigning Senate meeting protocols toward greater productivity and efficiency. She hoped that everyone would offer up feedback regarding the new protocols and also acknowledged Vice President Margaret Paris’ (Law) efforts.

Senator William Steiner (Student Senator) stated that the day prior to the Senate meeting, Senate President Kyr had held a discussion with student representatives regarding meeting efficiency, and he encouraged all Senators to attend a portion of an ASUO Senate meeting to bridge the gap that existed between the UO Senate and the ASUO Senate. An ASUO Senate meeting was being held that night at 7PM in the Walnut Room of the Erb Memorial Union.

Senate President Kyr thanked Senator Steiner for his comments and offered the students a round of applause for the efforts.

7. ADJOURNMENT

Seeing no further business, Senate President Kyr called the March 13, 2013 meeting of the University of Oregon Senate to a close at 5:06PM.