Minutes of the UO Senate Meeting for November 07, 2012

Minutes of the UO Senate Meeting 07 November 2012

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





Senate President Robert Kyr (Music & Dance) called the meeting of the University Senate for November 7, 2012 to order at 3:06PM in room 101 of the Knight Library. He reminded Senators to mark their names on the sign-in sheet.

1.1 Approval of the Minutes of the May 9 & 23, 2012 Meetings

Senate President Kyr asked if there were any corrections to the May 9 and 23 Senate meeting minutes. Hearing none, he called for the approval of the minutes. A voice vote was taken, and the May 9 and 23 minutes were approved unanimously. He then welcomed President Gottfredson to the Senate meeting and invited him to deliver his stated of the university address.


2.1 Remarks by University President Michael Gottfredson

President Gottfredson commented that in the interest of time, he would be giving an abridged version of his address, as the Senate agenda was quite large. His full remarks were available upon request. He first mentioned several illustrative happenings that were taking place at the university. This year, the UO welcomed the most academically diverse group of incoming freshman in its history. He believed this was worth mentioning because it signified that admission to the UO was in high demand at the undergraduate level. That demand was generated by the quality of the faculty and staff at the university. The UO raised over one hundred million dollars over the past year, which was a significant philanthropic benchmark achieved by the administration. He stated that this was another symbol of the quality of work that was taking place at the university. This number also included grants and contracts received from the faculty and the vast majority of these projects were won competitively by peer review adjudication.

President Gottfredson mentioned that there had been several major facility augmentations to the campus including the Lewis Integrated Science Facility, the Allen Hall renovations, and the Global Scholars Hall. He then stated that the breadth and depth of the achievements of the faculty was stunning and remarkable. The university added five Fullbright Scholars to its list, seven professors were elected as fellows to the American Mathematics Society, and the School of Architecture recently received the number one ranking in the nation for sustainable design education. According to President Gottfredson, all of these great accomplishments contributed greatly to the quality of education offered at the university. He then mentioned a number of concerns that his administration was considering, and asked the Senate for their suggestions regarding these items.

President Gottfredson mentioned that it was very likely that the university would not receive a significant increase in funding from the state, but the UO would receive significant cost increases particularly coming from the benefit side of the universities operating budget. He stated that these increases would present difficulties for the university that would have to be worked through. The capital development budget had several very important projects taking place at the university including a renovation to Straub Hall, which would expand classroom space, the Science Library Project, which would also increase classroom space, and the Clark Honor’s Hall renovation. President Gottfredson stated that he would try to maintain the universities position on these projects during the upcoming Legislative Session.

The President was very optimistic regarding governance legislation that would soon be before the Senate in the coming months. In his opinion, the report that was generated by the special committee regarding the installation of internal governance boards for the UO and PSU (Portland State University) was a very strong report and he felt very optimistic about the state legislature approving the committee’s report. He stated that his administration was very highly focused on realizing that initiative. There were some areas of concern regarding the report, and his administration would be working together with legislators to address those concerns during the upcoming legislative session. The President then stated that it was likely that the UO would be granted an institutional governing board at the upcoming legislative session.

President Gottfredson stated that student enrollment was nearly twenty-five thousand strong. He mentioned that during the 1960s, the population of Eugene was about double that number. Both the city and university had grown significantly since that time, but growth in the areas of faculty, staff, and facilities had not increased to compensate for the growing number of students. He stated that his administration was going to work on this as a first order of business item. Faculty, staff, and classroom/office space ratios had deteriorated and according to President Gottfredson, the UO’s capital projects in the legislative state budget would provide a welcome solution to some of those concerns, but they would not be full solutions.

There was an additional concern with the Federal Budget, specifically in regards to the issue of sequestration. According to President Gottfredson, if sequestration were to take place, which he was hopeful that it would not, it would create very significant difficulties for the university particularly regarding federally funded grants and contracts. He was very pleased to say that the UO had been involved in enhancing philanthropic efforts towards the next capital campaign, which was proceeding on pace, and would be bold, ambitious, and deserved.

President Gottfredson mentioned a final area of concern regarding administrative evaluations. He stated that everyone in Johnson Hall believed strongly in administrative evaluations. The ELT (Executive Leadership Team) had been discussing this issue and they believed in annual evaluations for all administrators. All administrators would be evaluated by their immediate supervisors on a routine basis. He stated that currently they occurred in some areas, but would occur in all areas going forward. President Gottfredson stated that he and the Provost believed in routine periodic general evaluations for academic administrators, which would include faculty and peer input. These evaluations would include a self and supervisor assessment and he reiterated that they would include faculty and peer input. He stated that he was comfortable with these reviews taking place in the fifth year of employment, and he would make sure that all academic administrators went through a personnel review during their fifth year of employment. He then reminded the Senate that in order for all personnel reviews to be correctly administered, they must be confidential. He then asked for questions and comments from the Senate body.

2.2 Questions and Comments with Response

The first questions came from Professor Frank Stahl (Biology Emeritus). Professor Stahl stated that the Senate had before it a number of motions that may or may not pass, and the Senate might wonder if the existing motions would be dealt with under the existing Constitution, which had not yet been ratified by President Gottfredson, or was the Senate throwing motions to the wind that did not matter. President Gottfredson replied that it would never be his view that the Senate would pass motions to be thrown into the wind. The President stated that he took all Senate motions very seriously and his administration was currently having discussions regarding the Constitution, to which Professor Stahl asked if it was uncertain whether the Senate motions would be taken seriously. President Gottfredson replied that the motions would be taken very seriously. Senate President Kyr called for further questions or comments. Seeing none, President Gottfredson thanked the Senate for their time. Senate President Kyr invited Provost James Bean to the Senate floor to present his remarks.

2.3 Remarks by Provost James C. Bean

Provost James C. Bean updated the Senate on the Academic Plan. Discussions had begun during the summer of 2011 and 2012. A survey was originally proposed, but after discussions with members of the faculty, a different plan was suggested that involved the blog that was created around the plan. Provost Bean stated that they were going to be looking at all possible metrics that had developed over the last four years and that data would be collected and distributed in a series of discussion pieces. These pieces would include the statement that was in the academic plan, a data review over what had evolved over the past four years, and blog discussion points. He then stated that the entire university community was invited to engage in a discussion regarding the data provided. According to Provost Bean, at the end of the discussion period, which last would last approximately six to eight weeks, a committee of faculty members would be assembled to review the input and make recommendations for revisions to the Academic Plan. He then stated that he would bring the revisions back to the Senate at the appropriate time. The blog would be sent out shortly after the first of the New Year. Provost Bean commented that his engagement with members of the faculty had been incredibly constructive, and he believed that this process would yield better information than sending out a campus-wide survey. At this point, he asked for questions from the Senate body.

2.4 Questions and Comments with Response

Seeing none, Senate President Kyr thanked Provost Bean for his update and moved on to the New Business portion of the meeting.


3.1 OAR on Random Drug Testing; Robert Kyr, Senate President

Senate President Kyr reminded the Senate that at the October meeting, the Senate Executive Committee was asked to review the above policy with certain criteria set forward based on the discussion. He then presented a report to the Senate Executive Committee that Senate President Kyr wrote regarding the Drug Testing Policy, which is listed below in its entirety:

“I am writing to let you know about how I would like to proceed on the OAR on Random Drug Testing based on our discussion in our SEC meeting and other subsequent discussions. Number 1 – The Senate will not vote on the revisions to the OAR on Random Drug Testing, because the actual changes in the policy are in the administrative portion of it.” (He commented here that the committee returned to the red-line copy of the policy that showed every correction/revision.) “The actual aspects of it that were related to scholarships were not revised, but had been enforced since 1989, thus the actual revisions to the policy do not fall within the Senate’s responsibility to focus on academic matters as commonly understood in higher education. Number 2 – The process of reviewing the revisions to the OAR on Random Drug Testing has revealed some important issues related to scholarships. I am asking the IAC (Intercollegiate Athletics Committee) to consider the following questions that relate to academic matters and that were revealed by the SEC’s review of the OAR on Random Drug Testing. First Question – Are there policies in force that are related to the revoking of scholarships awarded to student athletes? If so, what are they? Second Question – If there are such policies, are scholarships revoked because of athletic performance or a breaking of rules relating to athletics, or because of academic performance, or for other reasons? Third Question – If the scholarship of a student athlete is revoked, does a process for an appeal exist, and what is it? The consideration of these important questions is clearly within the charge of the IAC and therefore I am referring it to that committee. Thus, I am asking the IAC to prepare a report on these matters and to present it at the January Senate meeting. I will also meet with the IAC at its upcoming meeting to discuss the items above.”

Senate President Kyr asked members of the Senate to write to him with their questions regarding these matters and stated that he would email everyone a copy of the letter for their records. He then asked for questions or comments from the Senate body and again encouraged them to write to him with their questions or concerns. He then acknowledged Professor Brian McWhorter (Music & Dance), the chair of the IAC, who was in attendance at the meeting. Senate President Kyr thanked him for the wonderful job he was doing in his position as chair. Seeing no questions, he moved on to the next point on the agenda.

3.2 Financial Conflict of Interest in Research Policy; Beth Stormshak, Associate Vice President for Research

Senate President Kyr invited Beth Stormshak (Associate Vice President for Research) to present her policy to the Senate body. Ms. Stormshak stated that this policy was a revision of an existing policy that needed to be updated due to a change in federal regulations concerning managing conflicts of interest. The goal of the policy was to help promote objectivity in research, and it applied to all researchers on campus who had or would be receiving sponsored research. According to Ms. Stormshak, the federal regulations changed over the year and needed to be implemented by the university by August 24, 2012. Currently, there was an interim policy in place. The regulations changed in a number of different ways. Travel expenses must be reported if they exceed five thousand dollars. Ms. Stormshak commented that the policy had been reviewed and approved by the Science Council during the spring term. It was also reviewed by a special committee that was developed to provide input to the Senate. She stated that the majority of those committee members had approved the policy. She then asked for questions from the Senate body.

Senate President Kyr stated that the Senate was sent a copy of the policy and it was briefly discussed at the October Senate meeting and again called for questions and comments from the Senate body. Seeing none, he asked for a motion to vote on the policy.

Before a motion to vote could be called, Professor Frank Stahl (Biology Emeritus) stated that he believed the policy was a very straight forward one and he had no objection to its content, however he was concerned with one aspect of the policies preamble. Specifically, he was concerned with the implication in the preamble that it was the universities policy to encourage investigators to seek grants from industry. He believed that the implication that such encouragement was UO policy was both gratuitous and contentious. According to Professor Stahl, it was gratuitous because it did not have a direct bearing on the policy itself, and it was contentious because it was not a matter of settled policy as to whether such grants were in the best interest of the university. Professor Stahl stated that the UO would do well to heed the warning of the late Harold Evans, a highly regarded scientist at Oregon State University. Evans, who was OSU’s only member of the National Academy of Sciences, expressed regret that OSU had fallen behind the UO with regard to the quality of its research. He identified, as a cause, the widespread dependence of OSU faculty on industry sponsored grants as a primary cause for this humiliating Civil War defeat. He noted two problems: 1 – Such grant applications tended to lack rigorous peer review. 2 – There was a tendency for grantees to suppress results that might reduce their chances of getting their grant renewed. Professor Stahl then commented that since Ms. Stormshak’s proposal was coming to the Senate for a vote, and since it was in the Senate’s interest to spend as little time as possible on what should be a formality, he suggested that the policy’s preamble be altered by replacing the second and third sentences with the following single sentence: Research connections with private sponsors may create financial conflicts of interest in research that must be addressed to maintain public confidence. He then stated that his proposed change in no way restricted the rights of researchers to seek funding wherever they wished. He then moved that the Senate accept Ms. Stormshak’s motion pending his amendment.

Senate President Kyr asked for a motion to accept the policy. A motion was called and seconded. He then acknowledged Professor Stahl’s amendment and asked for a second. The amendment was seconded and Senate President Kyr called for a period of discussion.

Professor Stahl reread the two sentences that were to be removed and his sentence that was to replace the two sentences in the preamble of the policy.

Ms. Stormshak stated that she would like to address the concerns raised by Professor Stahl. She commented that the second sentence of the preamble was intended to encourage outreach with private industry. Her department did not want the policy to discourage those connections. According to Ms. Stormshak, some of the primary activities managed by the policy were issues related to innovation. She used an example of a faculty member creating a new product and then partnering with industry to market that product. She reiterated that the policy was designed to manage those types of conflicts of interest in research and she wanted to make sure that as faculty read the policy, they understood that interacting with private industry was not being discouraged.

Senator Randy Sullivan (Chemistry) stated that members of the faculty were not easily discouraged when it came to finding sources of funding. He believed that faculty would be able to find money when necessary and spoke in favor of Professor Stahl’s amendment.

An unidentified speaker stated that many members of the faculty had relationships with industry outside of the university, be it consulting or through other private activities. He commented that the policy addressed those activities, and as such, the sentence was meant to be broad in order to provide the faculty with protection for their research and possible outside activity with industry. He then read Oregon State’s similar policy:

Oregon State University promotes and encourages new and varied collaboration with entities outside of the university. The university recognizes that as a result of such external relationships conflicts of interest may occur when an individual is in a position to make a decision on his or her research, etc…

He then read Portland State University’s similar policy:

Portland State recognizes that relationships with external entities can be useful in many ways. PSU encourages those relationships as they enhance personal competency and benefit the community and institution, etc…

He then stated that they were trying to protect the conflicts that may come about as faculty, staff, and students interact with industry. He mentioned that the friendly amendment was not friendly because it did not capture the broad nature of what he believed the sentence was supposed to encapsulate.

Senator Gina Psaki (Romance Languages) stated that neither of the phrases in question used the term private and this was an area that could be easily fixed, to which Senate President Kyr asked that an alternative wording be suggested.

Senator Michael Dreiling (Sociology) suggested deleting the words “private industry” and replacing them with the words “outside entities.” Senate President Kyr asked for the final version of Professor Stahl’s amendment to be read aloud with the suggested amendment of Senator Dreiling. Below is the final version:

The University of Oregon encourages outreach to and connection with outside entities, at the same time, such activities may create potential financial conflicts of interest in research, which must be addressed to maintain public confidence in research.

Professor Stahl agreed with the addition to his amendment and Senate President Kyr closed the period of discussion on the motion. He then called for a voice vote on the motion. A voice vote was taken and the motion was approved unanimously. Senate President Kyr then invited Senator Bill Harbaugh (Economics) to the Senate floor to present his two motions to the Senate body.   

3.3 Motion: Faculty Input into Hiring Executive Administrators; Bill Harbaugh, Senator (Economics)

Senator Harbaugh stated that his two motions were meant to encourage faculty participation in the hiring and firing of administrators. According to Senator Harbaugh, the Senate had dealt with these issues several times in the past, most recently during 1996 by Senators Jeff Ostler and Chaney Ryan (both Philosophy). They asked the Senate President to request clarification from the administration of the policy procedures and past practices used for administrative review of deans and department heads and to indicate their current status review. This motion was passed unanimously in the Senate and at the following meeting (January 1997), Vice Provost Lorraine Davis reported back to the Senate, but her report did not include any information regarding dates of the most recent reviews of deans and department heads. He then stated that the dean who had initiated the motion shortly thereafter left the university and the matter was dropped by the Senate. Senator Harbaugh stated that currently, there were several administrators who had been appointed through interim processes without formal faculty input and who, as far as he could ascertain, had served for many years without performance reviews.

Senator Harbaugh stated that one year ago, he asked Provost Bean for the dates of evaluations or performance reviews of the administration, but he was not given that information. He asked again during the past summer, but was again denied the information. Three weeks ago, he made a public records request for the information and had not received it. Senator Harbaugh then mentioned that Senate President Kyr had asked for the dates of the evaluations and he had not received the information either.

Senator Harbaugh referenced President Gottfredson’s philosophy regarding performance reviews, which he reiterated to the Senate body. President Gottfredson believed that faculty should be involved with the review and selection of administrators, particularly those with academic responsibilities. Senator Harbaugh stated that neither of his motions were meant to be contentious, rather he hoped that the Senate would cooperate with the university administration to develop procedures for consistent faculty input into hiring administrators and administering their performance reviews. He then commented that he was not trying to establish guidelines for these processes, but his motions requested that Senate President Kyr appoint a committee and that President Gottfredson appoint several administrators to participate in that committee and to draft procedures that would then be ratified by the Senate and become official university policies. He advocated this approach due to the long history of the lack of faculty input into performance reviews and administrative hiring. After presenting his motions to the Senate, he moved that they be adopted. Senate President Kyr called for a second and the motion was seconded.

ASUO President Laura Hinman commented that students had traditionally been involved in the hiring of executive administrators and she hoped that Senator Harbaugh would be open to including students on the proposed committee, to which Senator Harbaugh replied that the language of the proposed policy included the constituents of the Senate, which included students.

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

3.4 Motion: Review of Executive Administrators; (Harbaugh)

Senator Harbaugh briefly explained the content of his second motion to the Senate body. He stated that it was similar to his first motion, except that this one focused on performance reviews of executive administrators. The background and motivations were similar, and the wording stated that regular 360 degree performance reviews shall be performed on executive administrators, and the same appointed committee from the first motion would carry out these reviews. Senator Harbaugh’s policy proposed a three year cycle between reviews, but earlier in the meeting, President Gottfredson had proposed a five year cycle. The policy also included a provision for “prompt catch-up reviews for administrators who had not had major reviews within the past three years.” He believed that this provision was particularly important due to the fact that several high level administrators had not been reviewed for the past sixteen years.

After presenting his motion, Senator Harbaugh moved that it be adopted by the Senate. The motion was seconded by Senator Mark Gillem (AAA) and Senate President Kyr then called for a period of discussion on the motion.

President Gottfredson began the discussion by mentioning a point of clarification. He stated that these reviews would be personnel reviews and then stated that personnel reviews needed to be confidential. According to the President, reporting the outcome of a personnel review would negate the confidentiality of that review. Senator Harbaugh asked President Gottfredson to propose a specific change to the wording of his motion, to which the President replied that what would be reported was that the reviews had been accomplished, but the content of those reviews would not be divulged. Senator Harbaugh asked the President if a summary of the reviews, including the people who were involved in the review and the questions that were asked, might be presented to the Senate, to which President Gottfredson stated that in his experience that was not typically done. He believed that the confidentiality aspect of a personnel review made the review more meaningful. Senator Harbaugh commented that there might be a better way to accomplish his goal, to which President Gottfredson replied that reporting an appointment continuation seemed appropriate. Senator Harbaugh then asked if, for the time being, the wording of the motion could remain as it was, and once the committee was established, it would be up to them to devise suitable language, to which President Gottfredson agreed.

Provost Bean updated the Senate on the current personnel review process. He stated that for most of the sixteen years described by Senator Harbaugh, there were no personnel reviews. According to Provost Bean, a change occurred in 2007 when he was dean of the business school. He insisted on a review, as was in his appointment letter, and former Provost Linda Brady developed a process that had been in use ever since. The process was comprised of the following steps. 1 – A committee was assembled (usually comprised of three people), whose members were a function of the position that was being reviewed. He was unsure if the committee members had faculty representation or not, but was open to discuss this option. 2 – The committee developed focus interviews (in the case of reviewing a dean) with the academic advisory committee, external advisory committee, and other deans. This entire community filled out a survey including faculty and staff. The survey included many questions related to the dean’s performance. 3 – A public presentation took place, usually during the April or May months and those who attended the presentation could respond to the review via a website. According to Provost Bean, the presentation described what had been accomplished under the dean during the last five years and presented a proposal for the next five years. That report was submitted to Provost Bean and handled as a personnel matter. He then stated that in lieu of this discussion, he performed an audit of all deans, vice-provosts, and vice-presidents that reported to his office and only one person was found who had not received a personnel review in the last five years. Provost Bean met with that individual and they agreed to be added to this year’s review process. He then stated that by the end of the year, all personnel reviews operating on a five year cycle would be up to date, and commented that it was not accurate that these reviews were not being performed. Typically, three personnel reviews were performed each year, and on his sabbatical year (2011 – 2012) personnel reviews were not performed due to the hectic year that had transpired.

Senator Randy Sullivan (Chemistry) asked Provost Bean why the Senate had to wait for that particular meeting for him to divulge that information and then he spoke in favor of Senator Harbaugh’s two policies as he believed it would be beneficial to have a clear set of guidelines written down.

Senator Huaxin Lin (Mathematics) asked for a point of clarification regarding the term 360 degrees review, to which Senator Harbaugh replied that it was a term used by management professors to describe a review in which the person under review, their supervisors, and those who serve under the person being reviewed had the opportunity to express their opinions. Senator Lin replied that he would prefer if a different word was used to describe the review process as the current language did not make sense to him, to which Senator Harbaugh replied that the committee, once established, should devised the proper terminology. Senator Lin agreed with this suggestion.

Provost Bean replied to Senator Sullivan’s question and stated that he had given this presentation to the Senate President and would be happy to present it again at any time, but he would not divulge the content of personnel reviews as those reviews were confidential.

Senator Michael Dreiling (Sociology) spoke in favor of Senator Harbaugh’s motion. He commented that his support rested on the idea that the Senate was authorizing the formation of a committee, and that committee would hammer out the details of how to proceed with a review process. He then stated that this process was moving the university forward.

Senator Mark Gillem (AAA) called the motion to question and a voice vote was taken to vote on the motion. It was approved unanimously and Senate President Kyr then called for a voice vote to approve the motion. A voice vote was taken, and the motion was approved unanimously. Senate President Kyr called Professor Frank Stahl to the Senate floor to present his motion.

3.5 Motion: Release Time to Enhance Senate Effectiveness; Frank Stahl, Professor Emeritus (Biology)

Professor Stahl stated that he was going to present his motion, but in view of the uncertain situation in which such a motion would move that was lacking a Constitution, he decided to not make the motion, but rather incorporate it as a provision to the Constitution when it was revised. As such, he withdrew his motion, and Senate President Kyr called Senator Christopher Sinclair (Mathematics) to the Senate floor to present his motion.

3.6 Motion (Resolution): Inequity in ORP Contribution Rates; Christopher Sinclair, Assistant Professor (Mathematics)

Senator Sinclair stated that the issue regarding inequity in ORP contribution rates was brought to his attention by Professor Marcin Bownik (Mathematics). He stated that a committee was formed by the Oregon Senate to evaluate the optional retirement plan for employees of OUS (Oregon University System). The report generated by the committee failed to mention the inequity in rates between employees in tier one and two and employees in tier three. According to Senator Sinclair, employees in tier three had received ten percent less money than employees in tiers one and two. His resolution requested of the committee to include the inequity in their report that was being presented to the state legislature, and to devise a solution to the inequitable rate of tier three employees. He then moved that the Senate adopt his resolution, which was seconded. Senate President Kyr then called for a period of discussion on the motion. Seeing no discussion, he called for a motion to vote, which was seconded. A voice vote was taken, and the motion was passed unanimously. He then thanked Senator Sinclair and continued on to the open discussion portion of the meeting.


4.1 UO Police Department Transition Update; Carolyn McDermed, Interim Chief

Kelly McIver (Communications Director, Police Department) introduced himself to the Senate body, and stated that he was also a proud graduate of the UO’s School of Journalism, class of 1990. He was at the Senate meeting to deliver a brief update on his department and had several questions for Senators regarding police officers carrying firearms on campus. In January, he would be returning to the Senate to present a broader presentation on this issue. According to Mr. McIver, one year ago, the state legislature approved the creation of campus police departments at Oregon institutions of higher education. This approval brought Oregon institutions in line with all other AAU (American Association of Universities) institutions and nearly every institution in the country with greater than fifteen thousand students, all of which were armed. Currently, the UO police department was not allowed to carry firearms as was stated in a provision of the legislation that created the police department. He then stated that a broad campus discussion was taking place regarding this issue, and sometime during the spring term, the UO leadership would decide whether or not to recommend officers carrying firearms to the state board.

Since that initial decision to create a police department, a number of things had transpired in his department including gained access to police records and systems, officer training at the police academy, and taking care of housekeeping duties regarding various policies and best practice situations modeled on police departments around the country. Those policies were now in the final stages of review with university leadership. Several committees had been formed including a complaint resolution committee that had worked on developing a new complaint resolution process for the better part of a year. An advisory group had also been developed for police implementation that included faculty, officers of administration, and classified staff, which had been meeting monthly for the better part a year and offered advice when necessary. Training methods had been revised and a police captain, Pete Deshpande had been hired. Captain Deshpande was a twenty year veteran of the Eugene Police Department who held two degrees from the University of Oregon, and whose father was a professor emeritus in the Physics Department.

Mr. McIver introduced Carolyn McDermed (Interim Police Chief) who spent seventeen years as a supervisor for the Eugene Police Department and another eight years with the San Diego Police Department. Interim Chief McDermed was also the co-author of three books on situations and stories of local Eugene homeless peoples and families. Mr. McIver concluded his update by introducing Senator David Landrum (OA Senator, Director of Administrative Services, Police Department). He then commented that his department was interested in employing police officers in the near future, who would be held to very rigorous standards. There would be many opportunities for the campus community to participate in that process.

Over the last few months, his department had been meeting with university employees and students both individually and in small groups discussing various interests, concerns, needs, and gathering feedback on general campus police issues and on the issue regarding arming police officers. He had begun to amass a list of questions and wished to obtain further questions from the Senate body that his department would address at the Senate meeting in January.

Senate President Kyr asked the Senate body if anyone had questions for Mr. McIver and his entourage. The first questions came from Senator William Steiner (Student Senator). He asked if there was a body of research indicating that armed campus police impacted campus safety in a positive way, to which Mr. McIver replied that he would not be answering any questions at the meeting, but would return at the January Senate meeting with answers to all questions asked. He also mentioned that he would be more than happy to answer any and all questions at any time outside of the Senate meeting.

The next question came from Senator Christopher Sinclair (Mathematics). He asked Mr. McIver to consider the issue of diversity when it came to hiring police officers and thought it was important that his department be mindful of the wide variety of cultures present at the university.

Senator Bill Harbaugh (Economics) stated that when the conversion to a sworn police department came forward, the Vice President for Finance and Administration stated that the conversion would save the university fifty thousand dollars and he wanted to know if the conversion was still expected to save the university money and if so, could he explain how that process would be implemented with the hiring of new line officers. He then prefaced his next question by stating that he knew it could not be answered and stated that former Police Chief Douglas Tripp left the university under very mysterious circumstances, and commented that it really harmed the trust in the public safety/police department when no explanation was offered for high-level personnel changes. He then commented that this was the third Police Chief that was dismissed without any explanation to the university.

Senator John Ahlen (Classified Staff) stated that it sounded like several people had already undergone police training and if so, was there a position description that had been published for police officers. He also wanted to know if the discussion regarding whether or not to arm police officers would inform whether or not police officers would utilize the powers of arrest.

Senator Peng Lu (Mathematics) wanted to know why police officers needed firearms on campus. He then commented that over the past ten years he had not heard a gun shot on campus and wanted to know why it was necessary to arm police officers.

Senator Gina Psaki (Romance Languages) asked if there was a record of incidents that ended terribly due to the Department of Public Safety not being armed

Senator Mark Gillem (AAA) stated that Mr. McIver’s department budget should be transparent and weapons qualification and designing magazine lockers was an ongoing event that cost a significant amount of money. He was curious as to what the initial operating expense and subsequent annual operating expenses would cost the university. He also wanted to know what the cost benefit ratio would be to the university, to which Mr. McIver asked if he could identify any specifics regarding how the cost benefit would be assessed or displayed. Senator Gillem replied that he would like to see details on the costs and would leave the benefits to Mr. McIver’s department, as according to Senator Gillem, they were the experts.

The next comment came from Senator Pedro Garcia-Caro (Romance Languages). He stated that for several hundred years, the British Police had been unarmed and their policing success rate was much higher than that of the New York Police Department, which was heavily armed. He wanted to know how arming UO police officers would impact the local university culture and also how it would affect local community relationships between students and faculty. Senator Garcia-Caro was also concerned about an armed officer’s impulse to act especially regarding possible instances of racial profiling.

Senator Mandy Chong (Classified Staff) wanted to know more information regarding training methods as it related to the various languages and cultural barriers on campus, as this had been a problem in the past. She also commented that the university had an increasing number of students from many different nations around the world and wanted to know what type of training the newly hired officers would be given in these areas.

Senator Ali Emami (Finance) wanted to know how the newly established police department differentiated its services from services currently provided by the Department of Public Safety.

Senator Jennifer Ellis (Finance) asked if there was any evidence that having an armed police force on campus forced tragedy rather than prevented it, and then asked who Senators should contact if they had further questions, to which Senate President Kyr replied that Senators should email both himself and Mr. McIver.

Senator Bill Harbaugh asked who would be making the decisions regarding these questions that were being asked. He also asked what the Senate’s roll would be in the decision making process. He then asked would it be advisory, would there be a vote, and what would happen.

Senate President Kyr called for further questions from both the Senate body and Mr. McIver’s entourage. Seeing none, he thanked the group for presenting at the meeting. Before leaving, Mr. McIver reiterated that he was more than happy to meet with anyone at any time to discuss these issues. 

4.2 Assessment; Ken Doxsee, Associate Vice Provost for Academic Affairs

Ken Doxsee (Associate Vice Provost for Academic Affairs) updated the Senate on his work regarding university assessment. He asked the question why should the university assess, to which he answered that there were sound academic and social reasons for assessment including accreditation and providing financial aide to students. He then stated that assessment, if done properly, could do great things for the university. A consortium was being developed by several AAU institutions which would facilitate a full range of data exchanges. The SERU (Student Experience at the Research University) Survey was distributed, with a one third response rate that included a wealth of data on a wide variety of student behavioral metrics. He presented a series of slides to the Senate body on the results of this survey and remarked that if Senators were interested in reviewing the data in more detail, he encouraged them to contact his office. He also encouraged Senators to ask questions regarding the information found in the survey as it might shed some light on how things might be done differently at the UO. Associate Vice Provost Doxsee also mentioned that he would be willing to work with any department that wanted to apply the survey assessment to their students.

Senate President Kyr thanked Associate Vice Provost Doxsee for his presentation and called for questions from the Senate body. The first question came from Senator Kassia Dellabough (AAA). She commented that she had been involved in various assessments throughout multiple careers, but was concerned that although the assessments provided excellent information, there was always the crunch of time, money, service, etc… She wanted to know how to implement program changes in light of assessment information and a busy schedule. Associate Vice Provost Doxsee replied that he was trying to take as much burden off of departments as possible regarding the acquisition and visualization of data, and leave the digestion and implementation of data to the departments. He then commented that most professors usually adapted their teaching each time a course was taught, but if a global issue was identified, he would work with departments to develop strategies for solving these issues moving forward. Seeing no further comments, Senate President Kyr thanked AVP Doxsee for his time and invited Laura Hinman (ASUO President) to the Senate floor to present the ASUO report.


5.1 ASUO Report; Laura Hinman, ASUO President

Senate President Kyr asked Ms. Hinman to please introduce the newly appointed Student Senators to the Senate body, to which she replied that this was an item on her report. The Student Senators were: Taylor Allison, Brian Vanderpool, Amy Jones, and William Steiner. She then commented that a fifth Student Senator would soon be appointed. She informed the Senate that her administration had recently participated in a watch party at the EMU (Erb Memorial Union). During the party many students registered to vote and several voted in the recent Presidential Election. She referenced President Gottfredson’s earlier comment that there were twenty-five thousand students at the UO and Senator Steiner was presenting a motion to help create student study space to accommodate for the increased student enrollment. Ms. Hinman stated that President Gottfredson co-sponsored an initiative to keep the EMU open during dead-week and finals week, and a referendum to renovate the EMU would be taking place during the following week of classes. She asked Senators to please allow students to make announcements in their classes regarding this issue. Finally, she mentioned that her administration was working with the Social Host Ordinance of the Unruly Gathering Policy that was put forward by the City of Eugene. Ms. Hinman stated that the mayor of Eugene had visited the Student Senate to discuss this issue, and her administration was involved in educating students regarding possible outcomes if the policy was passed. She was not in favor of the fine system (up to one thousand dollars) that was currently in the language of the proposed policy. After presenting her report, Ms. Hinman thanked the Senate for their time, and Senate President Kyr thanked her for her efforts.

5.2 UA Senate Liaison Committee; David Luebke, Chair

Professor David Luebke (History) briefly updated the Senate on the status of establishing an initial bargaining agreement. He reassured everyone that things were progressing positively and in a timely manner. Professor Luebke stated that over the summer, a dozen or more working groups comprised of forty members of the faculty worked towards developing a series of proposals on the initial bargaining agreement. Their goal was to have as much of that work assembled by the beginning of the fall term. They did not quite make their fall term deadline, but he reassured the Senate that they were now ready to proceed. Over the course of August, September, and October, there was a series of exchanges with members of the administration about laying ground rules for negotiations. A few weeks ago, there was an informal gathering with representatives of United Academics, which he could not attend. He then stated that on October 17, his constituency sent a demand to bargain, and according to Professor Luebke, a meeting will take place on November 20 to work out ground rules for negotiation. As they move forward, United Academics will post proposals on their website, which will run concurrently with a membership drive which had begun in October. Professor Luebke stated that membership targets were on point and United Academics hoped to begin electing officers and drafting by-laws by the end of the fall term. Senate President Kyr asked for any questions or comments from the Senate body. Seeing none, he thanked Professor Luebke for his presentation and for the cordial and collegial demeanor that existed between the Senate and United Academics.

5.3 Election of Senate Vice President in December; Robert Kyr, Senate President

Senate President Kyr stated that he very much encouraged nominations for the position of Senate Vice President. If anyone was interested in running or nominating another (after first obtaining the nominee’s consent), he was the person to contact.


Senator Will Steiner (Student Senator) presented a notice of motion, which encouraged the construction of additional study space and classrooms given the increase in student enrollment. Senate President Kyr asked him to please be in touch regarding the details of his motion.

6.1 Notice of Motion: Performance Review of James C. Bean; Nathan Tublitz, Professor (Biology)

Senate President Kyr read the notice of motion for Professor Nathan Tublitz’s (Biology) motion and informed the Senate that Professor Tublitz would present his motion at the January Senate meeting.

6.2 Notice of Motion: Support for Maintaining 4J Neighborhood Schools; Mark Gillem, Associate Professor (AAA)

Senate President Kyr read the notice of motion for Senator Mark Gillem’s (AAA) motion, which would be considered at the December Senate meeting.

Professor Frank Stahl (Biology Emeritus) offered a notice of motion. His motion urged President Gottfredson to initiate a process that would lead expeditiously to a functional UO Constitution.

Before adjourning the meeting, Senate President Kyr mentioned that the Senate meeting was a record breaking meeting. He thanked the Senate for their hard work and stated that at today’s meeting the Senate passed a revised policy, three motions, reconciliation was reached on the OAR for Random Drug Testing, and four notices of motion were announced for the December meeting. He again thanked everyone for their hard work and dedication.


Seeing no further business, Senate President Kyr called the November 7, 2012 meeting of the University Senate to a close at 5:16PM.