The regular monthly meeting of the Faculty Senate was called to order on May 5, 1999, at 3:00 PM, in the LaSells Stewart Center by President Kenneth Williamson. There were no corrections to the minutes of April 1999.
– Special Reports: Legislative Update, K. McCann; Microsoft Task Force, N. Lederman; and Information Services Ad Hoc Committee, H. Sayre
– Discussion Item: Internal Budget Allocation, M. Niess
– Action Items: Bylaws Revisions [Motion 99–548–01 through –14]
Members Absent Without Representation:
Azarenko, Barth, Bird, Biwan, Bloomer, Brodie, Burt, Bushnell, Champeau, Crateau, Cromack, S. Daniels, T. Daniels, deGeus, DeKock, K. Field, Fisk, Graham, Green, Gregerson, Hathaway, Hemphill, Henthorne, Hoogesteger, Huyer, Jepson, Jimmerson, Jones, Kaneps, Kerkvliet, Klein, Krause, Lajtha, Levine, Lomax, Longerbeam, Merickel, Moore, Morris, Murphy, Peters, Prucha, Righetti, Rosenberger, Tesch, Trehu, and Tynon.
Faculty Senate Officers, Ex–Officios and Staff Present:
K. Williamson, President; G. Matzke, President–Elect; M. Niess, Immediate Past President; R. Arnold, Ex–Officio; R. Iltis, Parliamentarian; and V. Nunnemaker, Senate Administrative Assistant.
Guests of the Senate:
G. Beach, S. Francis, D. Johnson, K. McCann, P. Montagne, J. Schuster, and T. Wilcox.
McCann reported that the Ways and Means Committee had passed the Higher Education budget during the last week of April with an additional $86 million above the continuing service level. About $5 million was moved to a separately funded bill for engineering education and about $2 million for OSU state–wide public service programs was also moved to a separate bill.
He noted that this is a time to be patient and a time to thank those who voted yes for their support and to thank those who voted no but made complimentary comments on the floor for their support. There is good support from both sides in the Legislature.
Anthony Wilcox, Bylaws and Nominations Chair, presented proposed revisions to the Faculty Senate Bylaws. Capitalized sections indicate proposed additions and bracketed sections indicate proposed deletions.
Article IV, Members, Sec. 2
The revision is to remove the requirement that faculty be stationed in Oregon at the time of apportionment to be eligible to be elected.
Elected Members. There shall be 132 elected members as determined and apportioned according to the provisions of Article V, Sec. 1. ALL Faculty, as defined in Article III, Sec. 1 AND WHO ARE INCLUDED IN SENATE APPORTIONMENT, shall be eligible for election to the Faculty Senate [providing they are stationed within the State of Oregon at the time Senate apportionment is determined annually].Motion 99–548–01 to approve changes to Article IV, Sec. 2 passed by voice vote with no dissenting votes.
Article V, Member Nominations and Elections, Sec. 1 Proposal would reflect current practice following the reorganization of Extension and Extended Education.
In the determination of representation of each apportionment group, all Faculty members who hold academic rank or FTE in one such group shall be included in that group, whether engaged in instructional, research, or extension work, with the apportionment determined accordingly. ON–CAMPUS EXTENSION FACULTY SHALL BE INCLUDED WITH THE COLLEGE OR OTHER APPORTIONMENT UNIT THAT IS THEIR ACADEMIC HOME. [Agricultural Research and on–campus Extension Faculty shall be included with the College of Agricultural Sciences; Home Economics Research or on–campus Extension Faculty members with the College of Home Economics and Education; Engineering or Forestry Research Faculty members with the Colleges of Engineering or Forestry, etc.]Motion 99–548–02 to approve changes to Article V, Sec. 1 passed by voice vote with one dissenting vote.
Article V, Member Nominations and Elections, Sec. 2
Proposal would make eligibility to vote the same as eligibility to serve as a Senator (Article IV, Sec. 2), and to correct a misreference to officers.
Voting. All Faculty, as defined in Article III, Sec. l., AND WHO ARE INCLUDED IN SENATE APPORTIONMENT IN THEIR APPORTIONMENT UNIT, shall be eligible to vote in the nomination and election of [Senate Officers] SENATORS.Motion 99–548–03 to approve changes to Article V, Sec. 2 passed by voice vote with one dissenting vote.
Article V, Member Nominations and Elections, Sec. 7
Proposal would clarify process of filling vacancies since deleted wording was ambiguous.
[Vacancies shall be filled from the list of names appearing on the ballot of the previous election, from the time they occur until the next election by a majority vote of the Senators of the apportioned group.] A VACANCY SHALL BE FILLED FROM THE TIME IT OCCURS UNTIL THE NEXT ELECTION BY THE UNELECTED NOMINEE WHO RECEIVED THE HIGHEST NUMBER OF VOTES IN THE MOST RECENT ELECTION. The unexpired portion of any vacant term that extends beyond the next election shall be filled at that election.Motion 99–548–04 to approve changes to Article V, Sec. 7 passed by voice vote with one dissenting vote.
Article VI, Officers, Sec. 1
Proposal would require a Senator who is elected President–Elect to vacate his/her Senate seat since the President–Elect represents all OSU faculty.
Sec. l. The officers of the Faculty Senate shall consist of the following: (a) Senate President, who has served as Senate President–Elect during the preceding term and (b) Senate President–Elect, an elected member of the Faculty who is now or has been a Senator. IF THE PRESIDENT–ELECT IS SERVING AS AN ELECTED SENATOR, THAT SEAT SHALL BE DECLARED VACANT AND FILLED BY THE APPORTIONMENT GROUP IN ACCORDANCE WITH ARTICLE V, SECTION 7.Motion 99–548–05 to approve changes to Article VI, Sec. 1 passed by voice vote with one dissenting vote.
Article VI, Officers, Sec. 3
Proposal would provide clarification in declaring the winner in the election of the President–Elect.
Election shall be by mail ballot in the month of November in a manner designated by the Executive Committee, which shall report the election results at the regular December meeting. THE NOMINEE RECEIVING THE HIGHEST NUMBER OF VOTES SHALL BE ELECTED. TIE VOTES SHALL BE RESOLVED BY MAIL BALLOT IN A RUN–OFF ELECTION. All persons eligible to vote in Faculty Senate elections shall be eligible to vote for a Senate President–Elect. A method for absentee voting shall be designated by the Executive Committee.Motion 99–548–06 to approve changes to Article VI, Sec. 3 passed by voice vote with no dissenting votes.
Article VI, Officers, Sec. 4, paragraph 6
Proposal clarifies determination of a vacancy in the office of the President or President–Elect and proposes a recall process for these officers.
[The Faculty Senate may declare a vacancy of office upon an officer's inability to discharge the duties of office, or resignation.] THE POSITION OF AN OFFICER OF THE SENATE SHALL BECOME VACANT BY: (1) RESIGNATION, ON THE EFFECTIVE DATE SPECIFIED IN A LETTER OF RESIGNATION; (2) LEAVE OF ABSENCE, ON THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF A LEAVE FROM THE UNIVERSITY IN EXCESS OF ONE MONTH; (3) TERMINATION OR RETIREMENT, ON THE EFFECTIVE DATE; (4) RECALL OR RESCIND. THE ELECTION OF A PRESIDENT OR PRESIDENT–ELECT MAY BE RESCINDED FOLLOWING RULES SPECIFIED BY ROBERTS RULES OF ORDER NEWLY REVISED (CHAPTER XX, ARTICLE 60). A RESCIND MOTION REQUIRES FROM THE SENATE (A) A TWO–THIRDS VOTE, OR (B) A MAJORITY VOTE IF NOTICE OF INTENT TO MAKE THE MOTION HAS BEEN GIVEN AT THE PREVIOUS MEETING AND THE MOTION IS PUBLISHED AS AN ACTION ITEM ON THE AGENDA OF THE SENATE MEETING AT WHICH IT WILL BE INTRODUCED. VOTING ON MOTIONS TO RECALL THE PRESIDENT OR PRESIDENT–ELECT SHALL BE BY WRITTEN BALLOT.Motion 99–548–07 to approve changes to Article VI, Sec. 4, paragraph 6 passed by voice vote with several dissenting votes.
Article VI, Officers, Sec. 4, paragraph 8
Proposal outlines an order of succession in the case of a vacancy in the office of the President–Elect.
A vacancy in the office of Senate President–Elect shall be filled for the remainder of the term of office by a special election following the procedures as provided in Sec. 3 of this Article, but not restricted by November dates for nomination and election. DURING THE INTERIM FROM WHEN THE VACANCY OCCURS TO WHEN A NEW PRESIDENT–ELECT IS INSTALLED, THE IMMEDIATE PAST PRESIDENT SHALL PERFORM THE FUNCTIONS OF THE OFFICE OF PRESIDENT–ELECT. IF THAT PERSON IS NOT AVAILABLE, THE NEXT MOST IMMEDIATE AND AVAILABLE PAST–PRESIDENT SHALL SERVE.Motion 99–548–08 to approve changes to Article VI, Sec. 4, paragraph 8 passed by voice vote with several dissenting votes.
This newly proposed article would describe the Interinstitutional Faculty Senate and how it relates to the OSU Faculty Senate.
ARTICLE VIII: INTERINSTITUTIONAL FACULTY SENATE SEC. 1. THE INTERINSTITUTIONAL FACULTY SENATE (IFS) SERVES AS A VOICE OF THE FACULTIES OF THE OREGON UNIVERSITY SYSTEM (OUS) INSTITUTIONS IN MATTERS OF SYSTEM–WIDE CONCERN, CONSIDERS STATE–WIDE POLICIES AND MAKES RECOMMENDATIONS THEREON, AND ENDEAVORS TO STRENGTHEN THE PARTICIPATION OF FACULTIES IN THE GOVERNANCE OF THE VARIOUS OUS INSTITUTIONS. IFS IS COMPOSED OF FACULTY REPRESENTATIVES FROM EACH OF THE OUS CAMPUSES. OSU IS REPRESENTED BY THREE (3) SENATORS.Motion 99–548–09 to approve Article VIII passed by voice vote with one dissenting vote.
SEC. 2. DUTIES. IFS SENATORS ARE THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE OSU FACULTY IN MATTERS THAT CROSS INSTITUTIONAL LINES. IFS SENATORS SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR SEEKING OPINIONS OF THE OSU FACULTY AND THE OSU FACULTY SENATE AS A BODY.
SEC. 3. ELECTION PROCEDURES FOR IFS SENATORS. THE COMMITTEE ON BYLAWS AND NOMINATIONS SHALL NOMINATE AT LEAST TWO CANDIDATES FROM THE FACULTY FOR THE OFFICE OF IFS SENATOR. ALL FACULTY, AS DEFINED IN ARTICLE III, SEC. I AND WHO ARE INCLUDED IN SENATE APPORTIONMENT, SHALL BE ELIGIBLE FOR ELECTION TO IFS.
THE COMMITTEE SHALL REPORT TO THE REGULAR NOVEMBER MEETING OF THE FACULTY SENATE. ADDITIONAL NOMINATIONS FOR IFS SENATOR MAY BE MADE FROM THE FLOOR AND THE NOMINATIONS SHALL BE CLOSED. THE FACULTY SENATE OFFICE SHALL PUBLISH THE NAMES OF THE NOMINEES IN THE STAFF NEWSLETTER, OSU THIS WEEK, NO LATER THAN THE THIRD WEEK OF NOVEMBER.
ELECTION SHALL BE BY MAIL BALLOT IN THE MONTH OF NOVEMBER IN A MANNER DESIGNATED BY THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE, WHICH SHALL REPORT THE ELECTION RESULTS AT THE REGULAR DECEMBER MEETING. THE NOMINEE RECEIVING THE HIGHEST NUMBER OF VOTES SHALL BE ELECTED. TIE VOTES SHALL BE RESOLVED BY MAIL BALLOT IN A RUN–OFF BALLOT. ALL PERSONS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE IN FACULTY SENATE ELECTIONS SHALL BE ELIGIBLE TO VOTE FOR THE IFS SENATOR.
SEC. 4. TERM OF OFFICE. IFS SENATORS SERVE THREE–YEAR TERMS BEGINNING IN THE JANUARY FOLLOWING THEIR ELECTION. THE TERMS FOR THE THREE IFS SENATORS FROM OSU SHALL BE STAGGERED.
Article III, Authority and Responsibility, Sec. 4
This section was proposed to be deleted since it is incorporated in the newly approved Article VIII.
[Sec. 4. Interinstitutional Faculty Senators shall be responsible for seeking opinions of the OSU Faculty and the OSU Faculty Senate as a body.]Motion 99–548–10 to approve changes to Article III, Sec. 4 passed by voice vote with no dissenting votes.
Motion 99–548–11 to renumber succeeding sections of the Bylaws now numbered incorrectly since passage of the new IFS Article passed by voice vote with one dissenting vote.
Internal Budget Allocation
Maggie Niess, Budget Allocation Advisory Committee Chair, presented the Internal Budget Allocation Process Development and Outcomes report found in the agenda. Niess worked with the Committee to gather information related to the new budget process and its outcomes. She also thanked the members of the committee for their assistance: Erik Fritzell, Gordon Matzke, Bruce Sorte, Vic Tremblay, Alexis Walker and Tony Wilcox.
The report recommended nine ‘Likely Faculty Priorities’:
1. Access to and quality of educational experience
3. Cross Campus Initiatives
5. Faculty retention
6. Graduate students
The report ended by reflecting on the process and suggesting improvements for the 2000–01 budget process:
1. A comprehensive strategic plan should be the basis of the budgeting process.
2. The strategic planning process should be a consensus building process that encompasses the whole campus community.
3. The strategic planning process should begin immediately in order to assure that the budget process for the fiscal year 2000–01 is able to reflect a strategic plan.
Senator Langford, Liberal Arts pro–tem, felt that the time line should allow more time in the budgeting process for faculty input, perhaps one additional month.
Senator Landau, Science, commended the committee on the report and offered the following comments:
1. Money should follow the students;
2. feels that different schools receive different amounts of money based on enrollment and should be reviewed;
3. commended distance education comments;
4. should never consider self–funded faculty salaries; and
5. stop drain of money going to athletics and being taken from academics.
Senator Cornell, Liberal Arts, questioned if there would be an opportunity in the process to prioritize the recommen–dations in the memo. Niess responded that the committee wanted to make sure that all items were included and were in no rank order. She urged Senators to recognize that the process is through the colleges and units.
In response to Senator Langford, President Williamson indicated that the Executive Committee would ask the Budget Allocation Advisory Committee to redraft the memo to incorporate comments made during the Senate discussion.
Senator Lunch, Liberal Arts, moved to accept the report and forward the redrafted report to the OSU President and Provost; motion seconded. Motion 99–548–12 to accept and forward the report passed by voice vote with no dissenting votes.
Microsoft Task Force
Norm Lederman, Microsoft Task Force Chair, reported on committee findings and presented the Task Force's final report for Senate endorsement. The purpose of the task force was to consider the issues surrounding the question of whether OSU should enter into a Microsoft Campus Agreement (MCSA) and to research and report the pros and cons of adopting the MCSA campus wide. The report, distributed in the agenda, did not offer any recommendations. The task force members were: Courtney Campbell, Jon Dorbolo, Dan Edge, Roy Haggerty, Paul Montagne, Michael Quinn and Lani Roberts.
Lederman reported that about 70% of OSU departments have already entered into an MCSA which determines cost based cost on FTE. The contract allows a department to terminate a contract at any time.
Pros (in no rank order):
2. Saves time and money in upgrades
3. Minimizes legal issues
4. Software can be used at home
5. Students keep the software after they graduate
6. No major infrastructure changes
7. Contract is yearly
8. Potential for greater incorporation of computer technology in classrooms since all are using the same software
Cons (in no rank order):
1. May be more costly for smaller departments
2. Will there be pressure against using competing soft–ware that may be more appropriate in classes?
3. Additional resources may be needed for duplication distribution of various products
Ethical Considerations – Will the arrangement:
1. Generate a conflict of interest for the university;
2. Risk subordination of the university's identity to industrial interests (e.g. will OSU be referred to as a "Microsoft university");
3. Transform higher education into a revenue commodity;
4. Enable equitable allocation of the university's resources and facilities;
5. Unfairly advantage or disadvantage any segment of the university;
6. Unite the university as a community;
7. Respect the decision–making autonomy of colleges, departments, and other administrative units;
8. Ensure that freedom of choice is preserved for faculty, staff or students who may wish to ‘opt–out’ of a given licensing agreement;
9. Have minimal impact on other valued university goals and priorities (such as resources for teaching);
10. Provide a coherent process for decision–making, including consent of university, faculty, and staff decision–making bodies.
In response to Senator Shor, Engineering, questioning whether upgrades would be charged for prior Microsoft donations, Lederman felt that the agreement appears to be worded such that upgrades would now be charged. Shor expressed concerned about who would be responsible for the charge.
Senator Coakley, Science, felt that this arrangement would cost large departments huge amounts of money and felt that it should remain an option. She thought that if the university were to mandate the agreement, then the university should be paying for it. She felt this proposal needs more consideration.
Senator Thorsness, Associated pro–tem, noted that Purchasing held forums to educate the university about the agreement and another will be held prior to renewing the contract. The recommendation is that the agreement continue to be optional.
Senator Gardner, Science, felt that this sounds advantageous for Microsoft' and was most concerned about the insidious effect of mandatory compliance.
Senator Langford moved to accept the report; motion seconded. Motion 99–548–13 to accept the Microsoft Task Force report passed by voice vote with one dissenting vote.
Information Services Ad Hoc Committee
Henry Sayre, Information Services Ad Hoc Committee Chair, presented for Senate endorsement the Committee's final report, which was in the agenda. The purpose of the committee was to oversee the implementation of the Information Services Review Task Force recommendations and to coordinate formal input to the policies and procedures of Information Services. Sayre thanked the committee members for their work: Gary Beach, Deborah Healey, ZoeAnn Holmes, Curt Pederson, Robby Robson and Tony Wilcox.
Recommendations 1–10 dealt with deficiencies in the conduct of fiscal management operations and budgetary responsibilities in Information Services (IS) as well as other campus units and are being addressed at a university–wide level. The recommendations will be considered by the Vice President for Finance and Administration, the President's Cabinet and the Deans. The Committee recommended that Vice President Specter report to the Senate in Fall Term 1999 on the status of the University's response to recommendations 1–10.
Recommendations 11–14 all pertain to the library and have been addressed as follows:
#11: Create reporting responsibilities for the University Librarian to both the Associate Provost for Information Services for matters related to integrating information services and to the Provost and Executive Vice President for matters related to the role of the Valley Library in the academic mission of the University.
This recommendation was reviewed by both listed individuals and they concluded there is no need to change the formal reporting relationship of the University Librarian. Instead the following actions were taken:
1) The title of the University Librarian was changed to University Librarian/Deputy Associate Provost for Information Services to reflect that this position is now second in the reporting structure within Information Services.
2) Quarterly meetings have been established with the Provost, Associate Provost for Information Services, and University Librarian to discuss library issues and concerns associated with the needs of academic programs, curriculum, instruction and research.
While the Committee believes that these two steps will help to foster an improvement in the communication deficiencies, the Committee further recommends the following:
1) Utilize the Provost's Council as a forum for dis–cussion of library development;
2) Have the University Librarian meet periodically with the Academic Dean's Council to discuss library issues; and
3) Encourage the University Librarian, academic deans, and senior administrators to collaborate in fulfilling the Valley Library's promise and expectations.
#12: Secure from Central Administration a commitment that the IS deficit reduction must not involve the serials and monograph acquisition budgets.
Recommends that Central Administration show its commitment to the Valley Library by supporting, to the degree possible with available funds, an annual increase in the Library budget such that by 2004–05, the total expenditures equal 4% of the total University budget. Further, the Committee recommends that the level of funding for the Valley Library not be reduced below 3% of the total University budget.
#13: Limit the Valley Library deficit–reduction payback to the level of its overspending in creating the deficit, which was $751,417.
The original deficit repayment required of the Valley Library was $1,382,834. The Associate Provost for IS accepted the recommended payback.
#14: Require that the funds used to restore the monograph budget (University reserve funds and Library endowment funds) also reduce the deficit payback expected of the Library.
Central Administration transferred $200,000 from University reserves in FY 1997–98 and the Valley Library used $100,000 from an endowment account to help restore the monograph collection. Neither Central Administration nor IS agreed to reduce the deficit by $300,000. IS has agreed to engage in discussions with the Faculty Senate Library Committee, Provost, Deans and other concerned faculty and students to assess how the endowment proceeds can possibly be redirected once the construction of the Valley Library is completed.
#15: Rename the Faculty Senate Instructional Development and Technology Committee (IDTC) and revise its Standing
The IDTC and Ad Hoc IS Committee recommends that the IDTC be renamed the Computing Resources Committee. Their new role would be basically two–fold: as the voice of the faculty in dealing with IS, and as a resource and advocate for faculty working with information technology.
#16: Review the rate structure of Telecommunications. The rapidity with which it retired its debt suggests they may be overcharging for their services.
Recommends that the Vice Provost for IS report to the Faculty Senate in Fall 1999 on the findings of a telephony expert report, and that a new Information Technology Advisory Committee be involved in determinations of adjustments of rate structures and ways to utilize the excess revenues.
#17: Articulation of a vision for computing at OSU by IS.
Recommends creation of a university–wide committee, the Information Technology Advisory Committee, to articulate priorities and develop a vision for computing and related technologies at OSU.
Senator Lunch, Liberal Arts, moved to accept the report; motion seconded. Motion 98-548-14 passed by voice vote with one dissenting vote.
– IFS, AOF, AAUP Joint Meeting – The joint meeting will be held May 8 in the CH2M Hill Alumni Center.
– Annual Reports – Annual reports for all Faculty Senate committees/councils are due July 15.
Provost Arnold reported on the following items:
Budget Process – OSU administration is not prepared to move to the next step in the budget process until funding from the legislature is known.
Administrative Positions –
Forestry – Three Dean of Forestry finalists will visit during May.
Distance and Continuing Education – The Dean search is underway.
Graduate School – A screening committee is reviewing applications for the Interim Graduate School Dean position. At the same time, a review of the Graduate School will occur.
Veterinary Medicine – Dean Wilson's resignation is effective June 30, 1999. A fast–track search for an interim dean will be initiated.
Science – Dean Horne's resignation is effective December 31, 1999. An interim dean will begin in September to provide an overlap period with Dean Horne. The interim dean may be in place for up to two years and the permanent search will, perhaps, begin at the end of the first year.
Promotion and Tenure Reviews – As dossiers are completed, units will be notified of the decisions.
Provost Arnold wondered if there was merit in considering a service center concept for some smaller units participating in the Microsoft Campus Agreement.
President Williamson's report included the following items:
Budget – Williamson briefly outlined implications of legislative funding. He summarized that the intent of the new budget model to make universities more competitive was met. However, since enrollments will grow at all institutions and the funding allocated by the legislature is fixed, the money received will be diluted. The other intent of making OUS comparable to peers will probably happen in relation to programs, since more money will be available for programs, but will not be achieved in relation to salaries.
Committees – Those who volunteered for Faculty Senate committees and those who were selected were thanked for their interest.
Difference, Power, and Discrimination Task Force – A task force to develop recommendations for the future structure and function of the Difference, Power, and Discrimination program is in the process of being appointed.
D. Curtis Mumford Faculty Service Award
Laura Connolly, Faculty Recognition and Awards Chair, presented a nominee for the D. Curtis Mumford Faculty Service Award. There was no discussion on the nominee. After reopening the meeting to the public, the nominee was approved via written ballot.
There was no new business.
Meeting was adjourned at 5:35 PM.
Faculty Senate Administrative Assistant