Minutes of the UO Senate Meeting for May 8, 2013

Minutes of the UO Senate Meeting for May 8, 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 May 8, 2013 meeting of the University of Oregon Senate to order at 3:06PM in room 101 of the Knight Library.

1.1 Approval of the Minutes of the April 10 & 17, 2013 Senate Meeting

Senate President Kyr asked the Senate body for questions or comments on the meeting minutes from April 10 and 17. 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 asked President Michael Gottfredson to deliver his State of the University address.

2. STATE OF THE UNIVERSITY

2.1 Remarks by President Michael Gottfredson

President Gottfredson stated that there was quite a bit of activity going on in Salem, OR in the state legislature. Two very important Bills were before the Senate and House of Representatives, which pertained to institutional governing boards. These Bills were Senate Bill 270 and House Bill 3120. Senate Bill 270 was the institutional governing board bill, and he directed Senators to read up on these documents, which could be found on his website. Senate Bill 270 authorized an institutional governing board for the UO and PSU (Portland State University). It also provided the opportunity for OSU (Oregon State University) to have an institutional governing board should their president find that desirable. It also outlined requirements for other institutions to request their own governing boards.

House Bill 3120, which the President referred to as a companion bill to Senate Bill 270, affected the structure of higher education in the state, and established the authorities that institutional governing boards would report to regarding such items as degree approval. The bill took many of the authorities that previously existed in the state board of higher education and brought them above all institutional governing boards. According to the President, both bills were going through the Ways and Means Committees undergoing further attention and analysis regarding their fiscal implications. The President had submitted commentary on those implications as had PSU and the state board of higher education.

The President believed that these bills encompassed a watershed moment for the institution regarding how the UO governed and financed itself. He then commented that these boards would be an enabling vehicle for financing the UO’s future. President Gottfredson stated that the institution was not trying to change its public mission in any way. The governance structure proposed in Senate Bill 270 was a very standard one for a public university that consisted of a board appointed by the governor and ratified by the legislature. They were trying to change how the mission of the university was animated.

President Gottfredson mentioned that several capital construction projects were under consideration in Salem including the Erb Memorial Union (EMU) project, residence hall expansions, and the G-bond renovation project for Straub Hall. They were also seeking G-bond support for the Science Commons Project, but as yet did not have the governor’s support.

His administration had moved forward on the national search for a new Provost. Professor Alec Murphy (Geography) was the chair of the Provost Search Committee, and the committee had begun meeting and was working with a search firm to identify potential candidates. Dean Scott Coltrane (Dean, CAS) had agreed to serve as Interim Provost while the search was underway.

The President reported that several changes were taking place in the central administration. With the departure of Michael Redding (Vice President, University Relations) two vice presidential areas were being combined into one. The Government Relations and Development Activities were now the Office of University Advancement, which was led by Michael Andreasen (Vice President of University Advancement). He believed that the integration of both offices was critically important as the UO was moving further towards the establishment of an institutional governing board. President Gottfredson stated that VP Andreasen was developing an extremely important capital campaign that would commence as soon as the institutional governing board was in place.

President Gottfredson then mentioned several exceptional accomplishments garnered by the faculty including the UO Chamber Choir, under the direction of Professor Sharon Paul (Director of Choral Activities) who placed first in the Fleischmann International Competition at the Cork International Choral Festival in Cork, Ireland. He also mentioned that His Holiness the Dali Lama was visiting the university and would be speaking to the campus community at the Matthew Knight Arena during the following week.

After delivering his address, President Gottfredson asked for questions from the Senate body.

2.1.1 Questions and Comments with Response

Senator John Ahlen (Classified Staff Senator) asked President Gottfredson if he supported having a Classified Staff employee serve on the institutional governing board.

President Gottfredson replied that his recommendations to the legislature were made public and that he was mostly supportive of an undesignated board and believed that a student and faculty member were appropriate. That was his recommendation.

Senator Ahlen asked if it would be fair to characterize that President Gottfredson opposed having a Classified Staff member on the board, to which the President replied that he characterized his support rather than his opposition.

Senator Ahlen then stated that he had heard concerns from fellow Classified Staff members that they were not being paid enough money to be able to afford a seat on the institutional governing board. He then asked President Gottfredson if he knew how a Classified Staff member might be placed on the board, to which President Gottfredson replied that his administration was currently bargaining with the Classifed union and any comments regarding his request were restricted until the bargaining was complete. He thanked Senator Ahlen for his comments.

Lamar Wise (student) stated that he was proxy for Senator William Steiner (Student Senator) who was not able to attend the meeting. He asked President Gottfredson to provide an update on the composition of the proposed institutional governing board.

President Gottfredson replied that there were no current updates. Senate Bill 270 had information on the current composition of the board.

Senator Michael Dreiling (Sociology) apologized for being late to the meeting, and commented that it was unclear to him whether or not faculty or students would get a vote on the board. He then asked the President what he was going to do to insure that faculty and students received a vote.

President Gottfredson replied that he had spoken to this point earlier and that his stance on this matter could be found in his comments that he delivered to the state legislature.

Senator Dreiling asked the President what he was going to do in addition to his comments to lobby for a faculty, student, and Classified Staff vote.

President Gottfredson replied that he was working all the time and he had made his position clear.

Professor Frank Stahl (Biology Emeritus) asked the President if he could insure that the local board would respect the UO Constitution.

President Gottfredson replied that he could certainly advocate for that, but assurances were beyond his capability. He then commented that he would put forth a very strong statement regarding shared and faculty governance, which was something that would never change under his administration.

Professor Stahl asked if President Gottfredson would exert himself to defend the UO Constitution as it presently existed, to which President Gottfredson replied that he would exert himself to defend the principles and reality of shared governance.

3. NEW BUSINESS

3.1 Motion (Policy Adoption): Legal Services Policy; Margie Paris (Law) Senate-Elect and Chair, Legal Services Policy Review Committee

Senate Vice President (VP), Margie Paris (Law) moved that the Senate adopt the Legal Services Policy and added that she had two small amendments to make, which would be discussed after Senate President Kyr had read the policy to the Senate body.

Senate President Kyr called for a second. The policy was seconded and he read the policy aloud to the Senate body, which can be found at the link above.

After reading the policy, Senate President Kyr asked Senate VP Paris if she had any comments to make regarding the policy. Senate VP Paris commended several of her colleagues from the law school who drafted the policy, including Professor Susan Gary (Law) and Senator John Bonine (Law).

Senate VP Paris informed the Senate that this policy had originally been drafted by the Office of the General Counsel in response to a number of concerns and issues that had been in the works for a number of years. She then proposed two amendments to the policy. These amendments were suggested to her by Professor Nathan Tublitz (Biology) via email.

The first amendment was under the “Right to Legal Advice or Representation” section of the policy. She referenced the second paragraph, third sentence, and stated that sometimes representative bodies, like the ASUO may seek outside legal advice as an alternative to the advice of the General Counsel, and those bodies should be able to expend their own funds in order to pay for that legal advice. She then stated that the third sentence of the second paragraph should be amended to say “University funds may be used to pay any expenses incurred in obtaining alternative legal advice or representation only if the General Counsel was asked to provide legal advice or representation.”

The second amendment was under the second sentence of next paragraph in that section, which currently stated “The University will pay the cost of…” The amendment inserted a prefatory phrase to that sentence, which was “Except for University Senate and ASUO funds, University funds may be used to pay the cost of…

Senate President Kyr read the amendments aloud to the Senate body and asked if there were any objections to these amendments being considered as friendly amendments. Seeing no objections, he called for a period of discussion on the amendments.

Senator Ronald Mitchell (Political Science) asked for a point of clarification regarding who defended employees of the university. It was his assumption that the Attorney General defended university employees. He asked if that was correct and also wanted to know what was being changed by the policy.

Senate VP Paris replied that the policy did not change who defended university employees or the quality of defense as those matters were covered by the Office of the General Counsel. The UO did not have a policy on legal representation, and this solidified that matter. She then commented that in respect to defense, the one thorny point had been that the Office of the General Counsel’s interpretation of what lay within the scope of employment, she suspected, had not matched university employee expectations of what lay within the scope of university employment. She offered an example of a colleague in the Law School who was sued for a comment she made in an article she wrote as part of her scholarly research. The Office of the General Counsel declined to represent her on the grounds that her writings were beyond the scope of university employment. She proposed that the Senate make a strong statement regarding matters similar to her example as she believed that they did fall within the scope of university employment.

The other matter that was changed by the policy regarded the right of university employees to obtain their own legal counsel if an employee was dissatisfied with the legal opinion of the General Counsel or if the General Counsel declined to represent a university employee. According to Senate VP Paris, this policy made it possible for university employees to seek legal counsel elsewhere.

Senator Mitchell asked if this policy changed university representation from the State Attorney General’s Office to the Office of the General Counsel.

Senator Bill Harbaugh (Economics) replied that Senate Bill 242, which was passed one year ago, stated that the Oregon University System (OUS) was not eligible to request or receive legal services from the Attorney General and The Department of Justice (DOJ) except in a few cases. He believed that circumstances had recently changed and the university received all legal advice through the Office of the General Counsel. He then mentioned that in light of this information, several items in the policy would have to be reworked.

Senate VP Paris asked Senator Harbaugh if he was suggesting that university employees could no longer seek advice from the DOJ, to which he replied that he thought that was the case, but he was not able to find that specific language in the document he was currently viewing. It was his belief that university employees could not go to the DOJ for legal advice. He then commented that it would have been very helpful if the General Counsel had attended the Senate meeting for today’s discussion.

Senate VP Paris stated that she did not know the answer to Senator Mitchell’s question and did not know if it affected the language of the policy and did not see the harm in leaving that language in, unless Senators thought differently.

Lamar Wise (student) placed his support for the amendments offered by Senate VP Paris.

Senator Kelley Howarth (Romance Languages) referenced the last sentence of the first paragraph under the section entitled “Defense and Indemnification of Employees and Authorized Volunteers.” She wanted to know why Non-Tenure Track Faculty (NTTF) and other employees were not mentioned in this sentence.

Senate VP Paris replied that she had not included other constituencies in that sentence because she had not heard of any controversy regarding the scope of employment other than from scholarly/research activities of tenure track faculty. The reason for that controversy stemmed from the General Counsel not checking scholarly research for accuracy, and she had not heard of this taking place in NTTF and other university constituencies.

Professor Frank Stahl (Biology Emeritus) commented that he was worried about policy language that implied that university employees had access to the Attorney General for legal advice rather than being restricted to its own General Counsel. He believed that having such wording in a policy could be thoroughly misleading, and if there was a law that prohibited university employees from seeking advice from the Attorney General, this should be confirmed, and the policy should be rewritten and brought back to the Senate. He was reluctant to see the policy go forward until these issues had been researched and fully addressed.

Senate VP Paris asked Professor Susan Gary (Law) if she could provide any insights on the Attorney General issue, to which she replied that she did not have any additional information to add than what had already been presented.

Senator Randy Sullivan (Chemistry) stated that the attorney client relationship invoked a whole plethora of ethical constraints and considerations. He wanted to know who the client was if a unit of the university asked advice from the General Counsel.

Senate VP Paris replied that this was a very difficult question, which she did not have an answer. She then spoke to Professor Stahl’s request and stated that it might be wise to research this item and come back to the Senate with more information. She did not have any objection to doing this and asked Senate President Kyr if this was acceptable to him, to which he replied that it was if it was acceptable to the Senate body, which it was.

Senator Randy Sullivan commented that in light of Senate VP Paris’s comments, he asked that the motion be tabled till a later date. Senate President Kyr called for a second. The tabling request was seconded and he then called for a vote to table. A voice vote was taken, and the policy was tabled unanimously.

Senate President Kyr asked that all further comments regarding the Legal Services Policy be directed to Senate VP Paris via email.

3.2 Motion (Legislation): Committee Requirements with Moderate Revisions, Slate 1 (Tenth-Year Review 2013); Robert Kyr, Senate President and Chair, Tenth-Year Review (Committee on Committees)

Senate President Kyr moved the motion to the Senate floor. He called for a second, and the motion was seconded. Senate President Kyr read the motion aloud to the Senate body, which can be found at the link above. He then read through the revisions to each committee, which can also be found at the link above.

Senate President Kyr read through the revisions to the Environmental Issues Committee. After reading the revisions, he called for a period of discussion on the revisions. Seeing none, he moved on to the next committee.

Senate President Kyr read through the revisions to the Faculty Advisory Council (FAC). After discussing revisions to the FAC, Senate President Kyr called for a period of discussion on the revisions.

Professor Frank Stahl (Biology Emeritus) asked if the description of the charge of the FAC clearly stated that the FAC did not represent a branch of shared governance, but was strictly an informal opportunity for the President to receive “off the cuff” advice from wise people.

Senate President Kyr replied that the charge was clear.

Senator Christopher Sinclair (Mathematics) asked if there was a specific reason why the membership specified tenured faculty rather than tenure-track faculty, to which Senate President Kyr replied that that was the original composition of the FAC. The previous membership language was considerably more nebulous and this specification clarified that matter in order to provide a broad membership.

Senator Sinclair asked why Assistant Professors were not included in the membership.

Senate VP Paris replied that the FAC had traditionally required tenured faculty due to its nature, in that it was not associated with the principles of shared governance, and it was important that members of the committee not have anything to lose regarding job security.

Senator Robert Elliot (Linguistics) commented that if the membership was not taking Assistant Professor, they may want to change the NTTF requirement to Senior Career Instructor to keep NTTFs in line with tenured faculty. Senate President Kyr asked him if he was offering an amendment, which he replied that he was. The amendment was seconded, and Senate President Kyr called for a period of discussion on the amendment.

Senator Kassia Dellabough (AAA) proposed an amendment to Senator Elliot’s amendment. The NTTF membership requirement should now read, “3 Career NTTF with Senior Instructor rank or above.”

Senate VP Paris commented that the membership should not exclude NTTF Instructors of Research and she did not know what an NTTF Senior Instructor of Research was called but wanted to ensure that that group was included.

Senate President Kyr called for a vote on Senator Elliot’s amendment. A voice vote was taken, and the amendment did not pass.

Senator Dellabough amended her amendment to the following, “3 Career NTTF who have undergone at least one promotion…” Her intent was to ensure that NTTF who served on the FAC had more seniority.

Senate President Kyr called for a second, and the amendment was seconded. He then called for a period of discussion on the amendment.

Senator Huaxin Lin (Mathematics) asked Senate President Kyr to explain what had not changed with the committee, to which he referred to Senate VP Paris who replied that she would have to refer to an older version of committee criteria, which she did not bring with her. She then explained the old membership and the additions made by the Committee on Committees.

Senator Lin asked why the “promotion” language was better than having Senior Instructors serve on the FAC, to which Senator Dellabough replied that the “promotion” language represented a wider pool of NTTF to fill the position, and a promotion required a considerable amount of experience to obtain.

Seeing no further discussion, Senate President Kyr called for a vote on the amendment. A voice vote was taken, and the amendment passed unanimously.

Senate President Kyr called for further discussion on the FAC Committee review. Seeing none, he moved on to the next committee.

Senate President Kyr read the revisions to the Library Committee to the Senate body and then called for a period of discussion on the revisions. Seeing none, he moved on to the next committee.

Senate President Kyr read the revisions to the Scholarships Committee to the Senate body and then called for a period of discussion on the revisions. Seeing none, he moved on to the next committee.

Senate President Kyr read the revisions to the Study Abroad Programs Committee to the Senate body and then called for a period of discussion on the revisions. Seeing none, he called for a period of discussion on the entire slate of committee revisions. Seeing none, he called for a voice vote on the motion. A voice vote was taken, and the motion was approved unanimously.

3.3 Motion (Legislation): Payments by the Athletics Department for Academic Purposes; Bill Harbaugh (Economics), UO Senator

Senator Bill Harbaugh (Economics) moved his motion to the Senate floor.

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 Senator Harbaugh to comment on his motion.

Senator Harbaugh stated that an independent and very broadly represented taskforce recommended that the Athletics Department (AD) implement these items in 2004 and the Senate recommended that these items be implemented by the AD 2008, but to date the AD had not implemented any of the items listed in the motion. Senator Harbaugh also had statements of support from five previous Senate Presidents and from the current co-chair of the Intercollegiate Athletics Committee (IAC). According to Senator Harbaugh, the AD’s budget had increased almost three fold since 2004, and the Athletics Director and his Financial Director reported that in six years, the AD might be able to begin making voluntary contributions to academics. Senator Harbaugh believed it was time for the Senate to set a firm deadline to begin contributions and a firm amount for those contributions.

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

Senator Huaxin Lin (Mathematics) deferred his comments to Professor Dev Sinha (Mathematics). Professor Sinha distributed several handouts to Senators. He explained that he had been on the IAC for six years, served on the hiring committee for the current Athletic Director, Robert Mullins, and had spoken with President Lariviere at length about matters discussed in Senator Harbaugh’s motion. It was his belief that despite Senator Harbaugh’s comments, the motion was a significant change to the 2004 taskforce recommendations. Professor Sinha believed that the AD was not ready to begin contributing to academics due to their current financial situation.

Senate President Kyr informed Professor Sinha that there was a time limit on comments from visitors and asked him how much additional time he required to deliver his statement, to which Professor Sinha replied that he required five minutes. Senate President Kyr agreed to the five minutes.

Professor Sinha stated that the AD was not generating operational reserves due to the building of the Matthew Knight Arena. According to Professor Sinha, the AD had two options, one of which was to use Legacy Fund monies to pay for the arena. The other option was to cut operations, which would entail discontinuing several athletic programs. The growth discussed by Senator Harbaugh was due to contributions made by Philip Knight (President & CEO, Nike Corporation) and Professor Sinha believed that a discussion should be held with Mr. Knight regarding the distribution of funds given by him to the AD. He then read a hypothetical letter to Mr. Knight on the type of conversation that he believed would have to take place in order for Senator Harbaugh’s motion to be implemented. The letter is below in its entirety:

“Dear Mr. Knight,

We know you’ve been the most generous donor to both academics and athletics in the history of our campus. We know that Coach Bowerman was the largest influence on your life outside your family starting with your time as a student athlete. We know you made public statements about how pleased you are with athletics and its accomplishments historically and recently. We know that it’s significant to you, the department; you named the new arena after your son. You called this the Legacy Fund Model because it is your legacy. But Mr. Knight, we don’t like your legacy plan. We blame it for having a lack of funds coming from athletics, so we’re going to take some of those monies and of course cuts in this department and we hope you don’t mind too much.”

Professor Sinha believed that this type of conversation was what the Senate was asking the President to deliver to the AD by approving Senator Harbaugh’s motion. He then referenced USA Today data on athletic departments around the country versus stadium size. According to Professor Sinha, schools with larger stadiums could afford to contribute to athletics and because UO had a smaller stadium, they did not have the operational reserves to contribute to athletics. He concluded his comments by stating that the President, Athletics Director, and members of the IAC were not consulted on Senator Harbaugh’s motion.

Harlan Mechling (Assistant Senate Executive Coordinator) stated that during his tenure on the previous ASUO President’s administration, he served on a student run campaign called the SCORE campaign, which met several times with Rob Mullins (UO Athletics Director). The campaign urged Mr. Mullins to adopt a similar model to the 2004 taskforce requests, which were ignored. Mr. Mechling spoke in favor of the motion and offered his full support of its passing.

Senator Christopher Sinclair (Mathematics) asked if the Senate could send this motion back to the IAC for their recommendation. Senator Harbaugh replied that the chair of the IAC spoke in favor of the motion. The chair was speaking for himself and not as chair of the IAC. Senator Harbaugh had spent a great deal of time on this issue and according to him; it was rare that the IAC received a substantial conversation from AD Mullins on this issue. He believed that this issue was very low on the AD’s priority list. When Senator Harbaugh had brought this issue up in IAC meetings, he had been told that it was a university issue and should be brought up in the Senate.

Senator VP Paris spoke in favor of the motion. She agreed that contributions from the AD to the academic mission of the university should be required; however, she did not believe that the Senate was the appropriate body to call for this requirement. Senate VP Paris stated that this requirement should come from President Gottfredson, and she feared that if this legislation was enacted it would place the Senate in a confrontational position with the President.

Senator Michael Dreiling (Sociology) spoke in favor of the motion and stated that given the timeline and the promises to contribute by the AD, this motion was not about saying no to the generosity of Philip Knight. He believed that the motion entailed holding the AD accountable to a claim and doing so in a way that respected other budgetary concerns of the university. He then commented on the lavish spending of the AD in buildings such as the Jaqua Academic Learning Center and Autzen Stadium. According to Senator Dreiling, those funds could be used to better the academic mission of the university and he believed the Senate was the body to hold the AD accountable.

Professor Frank Stahl (Biology Emeritus) reminded Senators that the motion was labeled as legislation, and it requested that the President act on its terms, which to him sounded more like a resolution. If Senator Harbaugh wished to label his motion as legislation, Professor Stahl asked that he amend the motion and replace the words “requests the President” with the word “shall.”

Senate President Kyr asked Senator Harbaugh if he accepted Professor Stahl’s amendment or if he preferred to change the label of the motion to a resolution, to which Senator Harbaugh replied that he was originally told that labeling his motion as legislation would not require the President to do anything. As such, he did not want to change the label to a resolution, and stated that he was content with the language “the Senate requests” because if the President did not act on this motion, Senator Harbaugh felt that President Gottfredson should come before the Senate and explain why he chose not to act.

Senator Harbaugh asked Senate President Kyr if he was correct in assuming that the President had to respond to a motion that was labeled as legislation, to which Senate President Kyr replied that the President had to respond to all motions that required his action.

Professor Stahl stated that the Senate could enact legislation with the wording “shall.” If the President did not wish to accept the legislation, he was obliged to come to the Senate and explain why. If the President and Senate could not come to an agreement, the issue went before the Statutory Faculty Assembly for a vote, and the President retained the right to veto the decision of the Assembly but must explain his veto in a letter to the entire faculty via email.

Senator John Ahlen (Classified Staff Senator) asked why the contribution figure in the motion was 2%.

Senator Harbaugh replied that 1% seemed too low and 3% seemed too high.

Senator Richard Margerum (PPPM) stated that he supported the motion but felt there was a great deal of information lacking. He did not feel comfortable voting on a motion without having enough information.

Senate President Kyr asked Senator Margerum if he was proposing to table or postpone the motion, to which Senator Margerum replied that he was curious to know why people were upset with the IAC. He also wanted to know why the IAC had not reviewed the motion.

Senator Harbaugh replied that this motion was supported by five previous Senate Presidents, and the IAC’s charge did not include holding the AD responsible for academic contributions. He also commented that previous taskforce reports had come through the UO Senate and not the IAC.

Senator Gina Psaki (Romance Languages) stated that she supported the motion and recalled a town hall meeting that discussed a ninety-four million dollar renovation to Autzen Stadium. The Athletics Director at the time stated that ninety-four million dollars was the cost of doing business in the (at that time) PAC-10. Senator Psaki then commented that the Senate needed to be concerned with the cost of doing business in the AAU (American Association of Universities). She believed that Section 2.1 and 2.2 of the motion should not be paid by the academic budget.

In hearing everyone’s comments, Senator Harbaugh believed that there was support for the motion, but he felt that people did not want to pin President Gottfredson into a corner or offend Philip Knight, who had been extremely generous to the university. In light of this, he offered an amendment to change the label of the motion to a resolution instead of legislation.

Senate President Kyr called for a second. The amendment was seconded and he then called for a period of discussion on the amendment. Seeing none, he called for a vote on the amendment. A voice vote was taken, and the amendment passed unanimously.

He then called for further discussion on the motion.

Professor Dev Sinha (Mathematics) stated that the IAC had not considered the motion as an agenda item. He objected to the characterization that the motion had been thoughtfully considered by the IAC.

Senator Hauxin Lin (Mathematics) was concerned with the timing of the resolution and thought further discussion was in order. He requested tabling the motion until the next Senate meeting.

Senate President Kyr called for a second. The request to table received a second and Senate President Kyr called for a vote on the request to table. A hand vote was taken, and the request to table was denied.

Professor Glen Waddell (Economics) stated that he was a member of the IAC and one of the charges that the committee faced during the 2012-2013 academic year was listed in quotation marks under 1.1 of the motion. Senate President Kyr charged the IAC with that task. He was slightly disappointed that Senator Harbaugh changed the label of the motion to a resolution and thought that the length of time taken for the AD to pay their bills was ridiculous.

Senate President Kyr ended the period of discussion on the motion and called for a vote. A voice vote was taken and the results were inconclusive. He then called for a hand vote and the motion passed. 

4. OPEN DISCUSSION

5. REPORTS

6. ANNOUNCEMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE FLOOR

7. ADJOURNMENT

Seeing no further business, Senate President Kyr called the May 8, 2013 meeting of the University of Oregon Senate to a close at 5:06PM.