Live-blog: Senate meets on Mandatory Reporting / Responsible Employee policy, course overlap

The focus of the meeting was the new “Responsible Reporting Policy”. There was lots of interesting debate, some amendments, and a decision to hold an additional Senate meeting next Wednesday the 18th to continue working on this policy.

DRAFT  Senate Meeting Agenda – May 11, 2016

2015-2016AgendasWatch LiveUniversity Senate Blog

Browsing Room, Knight Library; 3:00-5:00 pm

3:00 pm    Introductory Remarks, Senate President Randy Sullivan

3:00 pm    1.   Call to Order

3:00 pm    2.   Approval of Minutes  2.1      April 20, 2016

3:02 pm    4.   New Business

3:02 pm            4.1      US15/16-29: Repeal of Obsolete OUS Academic Policies; The Senate Curriculum Matters Policy Working Group and the Senate Executive Committee

Discussed at the last meeting, passes unanimously.

3:07 pm            4.2      US15/16-27: Revision of Academic Classification and Rank policy; Senate Employment Matters Work Group and Senate Executive Committee

Dreiling: Asked Triplett that the policy include links to the TRP and emeritus policies. Sullivan: It will.

Passes unanimously.

3:12 pm            4.3      US15/16-28: Revision of Sabbatical Leave policy; Senate Employment Matters Work Group and Senate Executive Committee

Passes unanimously.

3:15 pm            4.4      US15/16-23: Responsible Employee Policy; Committee on Sexual & Gender-Based Violence

Some links and background:

The proposed new policy is here. It repeals parts of old policies.

“2.1 THEREFORE, the University Senate approves of the attached Policy on UO Responsible Employee Duty to Report Sexual Harassment and Sexual Assault.  This policy repeals university policies 580-15-005 through 580-15-010 and 571-03-L(1) through L(4).”

There’s no link to these, and if you google Chuck Triplett’s policy page you get “Your search – 580-15-005 – did not match any documents.” So I asked Triplett for them, and he sent me these files:



Sorry, I’m listening not blogging.

After a thorough debate and several amendments, at 4:52

3:45 pm            4.5      US15/16/-25: Scheduling of Examinations Policy; Undergraduate Council and Senate Executive Council

4:00 pm            4.6      US15/16-24: Major/Minor/Certificate/Program Course Overlap Policy; Undergraduate Council

4:20 pm    5.   Open Discussion

4:20 pm    6.   Reports

6.1      “Academic Continuity,” Academic Integrity Taskforce

4:45 pm    7.   Notice(s) of Motion

4:45 pm    8.   Other Business

8.1      Executive Session – Affirm Award recipients for 4 senate awards

5:00 pm    9.   Adjournment

Closes 5PM today: Vote for UO Senate and Committee membership

Max Thornberry has a story on the Senate in the Emerald, here. Some extracts:

“American universities are the best in the world because of our strong tradition of academic freedom,” [Incoming President Harbaugh] said, “and because of the principle that the faculty, not the administration, controls the academic mission in all its details.”

Tangibly, the effects the Senate has on the school are felt in the forms of new courses and policies regarding majors. Academic matters can be loosely defined as well. The Responsible Employee Policy on sexual assault reporting will be discussed at the Senate meeting on May 11.

The current Senate has been active in the last year, approving 22 resolutions, legislation and policy proposals.

Moving forward, the role that the senate plays is set to increase. President Michael Schill “strongly believes in joint faculty control,” Sullivan said. “I think the senate is playing an increasingly influential role in academic reforms.” [Said outgoing President Randy Sullivan.]

The ballot is here, if you want to see who is running before you go to the voting website.

To vote, log into Duckweb here. If you see a warning about a potentially fatal contagious disease, you’re in the right place. Just click on the faculty/staff icon and it will take you to your ballot.

Screen Shot 2016-05-05 at 1.35.24 PM

The election closes Monday May 9th at 5PM. If you have problems with your ballot contact Betina at

UO Senate candidates begin posting statements for election

Assuming no technical difficulties, the election will start Monday 4/25 with an email to the Senate constituents. Voting will be done as usual via Duckweb. The draft ballot is here. The Senate Executive Coordinator has asked all candidates for Senate and elected committees to submit statements. Click the hyperlinks in the ballot. Here’s the first:

Screen Shot 2016-04-21 at 12.58.39 AM

If you are running and have not yet set in your statement, email it to

Senate meets Today at 3 on divorce of Senate & FAC, more policies

Summary: For those of you who skipped the meeting for early cocktails down at the Faculty Club’s temporary location (and Chuck Triplett has your names) here are the highlights:

Senate Pres Randy Sullivan ran another effective meeting. All got their chance to speak, business got done, and new ideas came to light.

Frank Stahl’s motion to divorce the Senate from the UO president’s FAC failed 18-8.

We had a healthy discussion of the upcoming Mandatory Reporting Policy (of sexual harassment and discrimination), developed by the Senate’s CSGBV and brought to the Senate by them on a unanimous vote. Many trade-offs have been worked out, not to everyone’s satisfaction.

The Provost appointed faculty to the search for a new Law School Dean without following UO Policy requiring he first consult with the Senate President and the FAC. The Provost agreed that he shouldn’t have done this, and we’re going to work together to straighten this out. SPQUO.

The Divest UO from CO2 students announced their fiendishly clever “Divest Fund“. Make a donation to the Divest Fund for UO scholarships, and they will hold it in escrow until the end of 2017. If the UO Foundation’s Jay Namyet has divested by then, UO gets the money. If not, it is divided among those universities that have divested. Someone knows their game theory, and it’s not the Foundation’s well paid Chief Investment Officer.

I tried it out, and they even sent a receipt for my taxes.

Screen Shot 2016-04-20 at 5.43.48 PM

Wednesday, April 20, 2016, Watch LiveBrowsing Room, Knight Library; 3:00-5:00 pm

3:00 pm    Introductory Remarks, Senate President Randy Sullivan

3:05 pm    1.   Call to Order

3:05 pm    2.   Approval of Minutes 2.1, April 6, 2016

3:15 pm    4.   New Business

4.1      US15/16-14: Respecting the Differing Roles of the Senate and the Faculty Advisory Council; Frank Stahl, Emeritus in Biology

Fails 18 to 8.

3:35 pm    5.   Open Discussion

5.1       Curriculum and academic personnel policies

Policy Repeal Proposals, via Policy Advisory Council and Curriculum Matters workgroup

OUS 52 Tuition Policy

OUS 12 Centers and Institutes in OUS

OUS 50 Sustainability recommendation

Curricular Policies & Procedures

Admissions Policies and Requirements

Frazee calls to suspend the rules and repeal these now instead of at the next meeting. Needs 2/3, fails.

Policy Revision Proposals

580.020.0005 Academic Classification and Rank 

580.021.0200-245 Sabbatical Leave

Koopman brings up a very interesting point. The university is adopting CBA language as policy for all faculty, including those that are not in the bargaining unit (Law, PI’s with grants and employees). So shouldn’t these employees have some representation on the university’s bargaining team, since they can’t be represented by the union side?

5.2       Responsible Employee Policy; Committee on Sexual and Gender-Based Violence (CSGBV)

Stabile: The committee worked very hard for months writing this policy, and voted unanimously in favor of this policy. Reporting ensures that the university knows about serial perpetrators. Gives survivors many choices – they can go to Crisis Intervention, report confidentially there, and get help and resources.

Murray: Why does it exclude student employees? Matella (GCO): It includes RA’s and GTF’s, but not other student employees because a reasonable person wouldn’t think of them as representing the university.

Frazee: I’d expect my student-orientation employeees (undergrads) to report. They should be given reporting responsibility. Stabile: We could include them. Matella: agrees, this is a choice the university can make, and should discuss.

Margerum: Recalls that last time there were concerns that this might reduce reporting, if students know what they say will be relayed to the authorities.

Stabile: My experience with students is that they come to talk after they’ve had bad experiences with how UO has handled things. I think it’s helpful to be able to tell them “I’m going to help you right now by walking you over to the crisis center where you can get counseling and resources.

Rocklin (Law, Bonine’s surrogate Senator): Students treat my office as a safe place for them to talk, I’m concerned that this will limit my ability to try and help them. Notes that Merle Weiner (Law) will provide a memo with some other issues and inconsistencies in the policy.

Stabile: Just because a survivor reports does not mean that the perpetrator will be notified, etc. There are many options.

Darcy: There are situations where a report will mean that the survivor loses control of how the situation is handled – e.g. if there is a threat to others. Students are never forced to participate.

Matella: Take a look at the student affairs website to see more on the process.

Ahlen: Would like to see an exemption for union stewards acting in their official capacity.

Sullivan reads comments from Freyd:

Dear Committee,

I feel I have failed to express myself clearly and for that I apologize. I have a few thoughts to share on required reporting. I apologize these points are now not informed by the discussion at the meeting yesterday but perhaps some or all will still be relevant for the future.

1) A fundamental injury of sexual violence is to take away the survivor’s autonomy and control . Anything we can do to offer autonomy and control to survivors will be potentially healing. Anything we do that takes it away will be potentially harmful. This I say based on RESEARCH.

2) When we draw conclusions about what reporting environment works based on only those students who report we are losing data from 90% of survivors. We need to be always asking what about the 90% who are not reporting – what can we do to make it safe for them to get their needs met. Why are they not reporting?

3) While the GC office has the duty to protect the university, a committee such as ours should fundamentally be about excellence not liability. The whole exercise of addressing sexual violence will fail if simply pursued for the sake of risk management – we should be as a committee be looking at how our practices are consistent with overall institutional excellence, the alignment of mission/vision/values in the specific context of sexual violence, and the development of a “culture of excellence” that will serve the institution at all levels.

4) One way to pursue a culture of excellence is to step back and identify the goals of any initiative and ask whether there are other ways to meet those goals that might be even more helpful and with fewer negative side effects.

5) Isn’t the specific issue about identifying responsible employees as articulated below by Kevin actually about aligning survivor expectations and perceptions with employee behavior and requirements? If a student believes a report will result in action but it dead ends, that is hurtful misalignment. If a student believes a report will be held in confidence and it is shared, that is also hurtful misalignment. Similarly if a survivor requires privacy but believes they cannot get it from the people they most trust they have a high probability of not reporting to the institution at all. Given this, isn’t the fundamental issue one of clarifying and communicating with students such that they have OPTIONS and very well-tuned expectations? And if so, couldn’t there be options the student has that clarify what will happen with their information and that will give them a path to reporting that they feel good about?


Sullivan: notes that mandatory reporting will only work if the university has effective procedures to deal with the reports and inform everyone at UO of the process. [That hourlong web quiz is not going to cut it.]

4:45 pm    6.   Reports

6.1      Divestment Report; Divest UO. More on this here.

4:45 pm    7.   Notice(s) of Motion

4:45 pm    8.   Other Business

Harbaugh: I discovered this morning that the Provost had begun appointing faculty members to the Law School Dean search committee, because the current Dean had told him that the Law School’s last faculty meeting was Friday. It’s not.

UO Policy requires that the Provost consult with the Senate President and the FAC about the composition of search committees. The Provost agreed that he should have done this, but didn’t. We’re going to work together to straighten this out.

5:00 pm    9.   Adjournment

Senate meets Wed 3-5PM to weaken godless ethics policy, regulate faculty inputs to online classes, and then listen to our students if time permits

Senate Meeting – April 6, 2016. Browsing Room, Knight Library; 3:00-5:00 pm. 2015-2016Agendas,  Watch Live.

Synopsis: Ethics passed eventually. Online input policy passed. At the last minute VP for Student Life Robin Holmes bailed on the student-led discussion of the Mandatory Live-In Policy non-policy, probably preventing any substantive discussion before it goes into effect.

The UO Divest students gave a report on the goals of their sit-in, and reported that the administration has removed their divestment banner from the bush outside JH, claiming it was a “structural element”. This seems like an obvious violation of UO’s free -speech policy and the careful language in the Facilities Use Policy that the Senate negotiated with Lariviere in 2010.

3:00 pm    Introductory Remarks, Senate President Randy Sullivan

3:05 pm    1.   Call to Order, 3:05 pm    2.   Approval of Minutes  March 9, 2016

3:15 pm    4.   New Business

4.1     US15/16-21: Revision of the Code of Ethics in Response to Feedback from the University President; Senate Executive Committee

Live blog: Schill’s not sure why we are bothering with this either. Something we inherited from OUS and it would look bad to ditch it. We then proceed to debate the Public Accountability clause and “inclusivity”. Someone tries to add the dread word “collegiality”. Harbaugh objects unless it specifies “collegiality as defined by New York City best practices.” Collegiality fails. Freyd proposes a simplifying amendment to delete everything after the second period. Passes. Harbaugh moves to change “ensures” to “requires”. Schill agrees. Amendment passes. The Godless UO now has a code of ethics, though the administration reserves the right to take another look.

My post from yesterday:

Yes, AVP for Collaboration Chuck Triplett has brought this back to us once more, for still more debate. And he tells people it’s the *Senate* that wastes time on pointless unenforceable motions? It seems someone in JH has taken a red pen to the public accountability language:

Screen Shot 2016-04-05 at 8.56.46 PM

But our administrators have no problem with this language in the UOPD’s ethics policy:

Screen Shot 2016-04-05 at 9.04.23 PM

Is there none righteous among the Senate, not one, with the stones (or ovaries) to propose an amendment adding God to the UO ethics policy? I’ll second, I swear (or affirm) to it.

OK, so we’re all atheists, just as Ben Carson thought. Well how about sustainability then? Even the godless worship sustainability. Maybe especially the godless. But Triplett’s Policy Advisory Committee is proposing repealing UO’s policy on sustainability, which we inherited from Pernsteiner and Triplett from back when they ran OUS, and before they ran Lariviere out:

Screen Shot 2016-04-05 at 9.29.15 PM

While I don’t doubt that UO’s “green brand” brings in more good students than the Duck’s party school reputation, I’m all for ditching this vacuous policy about “how we can live sustainably on Earth.” Instead we should should support our UO Divest students, who have a practical, well thought out program for reducing CO2 emissions through collective action, which they are working hard to implement.

4.2     US15/16-22: Policy on Undergraduate Online and Hybrid Courses: Student Engagement; Academic Council

Provost Scott Coltrane has appointed VPAA Doug Blandy of all people to lead a task force on online education, but his task force has just begun meeting, and he won’t share the schedule or agenda. Instead this proposal comes from the Academic Council. It does not attempt to deal with cheating or grade inflation in online courses, or evaluate what students might learn from these courses. Instead it’s all about regulating faculty inputs.

Screen Shot 2016-04-06 at 3.52.23 PM

Live-blog: Dreiling wants to see the SEI, here:

Screen Shot 2016-04-06 at 3.53.21 PM

White explains the impetus from this proposal: students were complaining that some online classes consisted of nothing more than video lectures and a final exam.

Koopman asks why the policy does not provide more guidance on what is meant by engagement – instead of defining it as what it’s not.

White: We are working closely with Doug Blandy’s task force to provide more examples in the SEI and other documents. Doesn’t want to give faculty language they can just cut and paste into a course proposal.

Wolverton: Agrees with Koopman, thinks there should be more guidance in the policy. 2.1 should reference the SEI. Furthermore, the SEI tracks *student* engagement, this seems focused on faculty workload.

Question is called, policy passes.

3:45 pm    5.   Open Discussion

5.1       Proposed Mandatory Live In policy for all new incoming students.

Last meeting we had to cut this very interesting student-led discussion off early, for lack of time.

Apparently VPSL Robin Holmes was not prepared to continue discussing the Mandatory Live On Policy for freshman that came up last month.

Senators ask whether or not this is just a delaying tactic on the part of VPSL.  Say it ain’t so!

4:15 pm    6.   Reports

Two UO Divest students, Joey and Nicole report on the progress of their JH sit-in and protest, aimed at encouraging the UO Foundation to divest from those fossil fuel companies that still haven’t gone bankrupt.

The students report that, after 8 weeks of their JH sit-in, the administration has been removed their banner from outside JH.

Dreiling: WTF? Don’t we have a free-speech policy?

Students: They told us that we couldn’t even stand there, because that made us “structural elements of the building.”

Senator: There have been many other banners on Johnson Hall over the years, including one celebrating the last capital campaign. Sounds structural?

Harbaugh: In 2010 the Senate rejected GC Randy Geller’s attempt to write a policy that would allow the administration to remove your banner. Perhaps the Senate should revisit this

Sullivan: Can faculty help out with the sit-in?

Students: We’re there from 9-5.

4:50 pm    7.   Notice(s) of Motion

4:50 pm    8.   Other Business

5:00 pm    9.   Adjournment

Sign up for 2016-17 Senate and Committee service NOW

Time is short. The sign-up for running for election to the UO Senate and volunteering to serve on Senate and University committees is here. It closes tomorrow, I believe:

Screen Shot 2016-03-10 at 8.11.08 AM

You can self-nominate for the elected positions, and indicate which of a plethora of interesting committees that you would like to work with. Remember, only you and shared governance can prevent this:

Screen Shot 2016-03-10 at 7.58.35 AM


Senate for Wed 3/9: Courses, ethics, confidentiality, dorms, sports

Elevator version: John Bonine and Kevin Reed and the Senate had a civil, collaborative, and productive session on the counseling confidentiality motion and the GCO amendment. Many interesting issues came out, thanks to the full engagement of the Senate. Some issues were dealt with expeditiously with new amendments, generally unanimously. Given the April 1 deadline for the emergency policy to expire, the Senate passed the policy with the GCO amendments, after additional needed amendments that arose during the discussion. The Senate will come back to polish it up in a few weeks, if needed, after more discussion with the GCO. This really could not have gone better, and will stand as an example of shared governance at its best.

Agenda  |  Watch Live

Browsing Room, Knight Library; 3:00-5:00 pm

3:00 pm    Introductory Remarks, Senate President Randy Sullivan

3:05 pm    1.   Call to Order

3:05 pm    2.   Approval of Minutes 2.1      February 24, 2016

3:15 pm    4.   New Business

4.1      US15/16:20: Approval of Curriculum Report, Winter Term 2016; Frances White, Chair of Committee on Courses

Yes, this proposal does include a new undergraduate Law course that double-dips on the Gen Ed and MC requirements and will suck off more CAS students:

LAW 301 Youth and Social Change (4) Explore how adults act on youth through law, mass media, policy, and social science, while investigating youth as agents of change, acting on their own perspective of law and justice. Approved to satisfy Category II: Social Science general-education group requirement. Approved to satisfy Category B: Identity, Pluralism, and Tolerance multicultural requirement. Effective spring 2016.

Really? I’m an economist and I’m not even sure that’s a science. But now law is too? I’ve got a request in for the syllabus and justification for SocSci and MC status. At least it’s not online with no proctored exams, like Doug Blandy’s AAD courses. FWIW here is the criteria for Gen Ed status:

The following criteria was proposed by the Undergraduate Council and the College of Arts and Sciences Curriculum Committee. The University Senate approved them in May 2001 by Motion US0001-3 Replacement Motion governing the approval of courses meeting general-education requirements and the distribution of courses student must complete within each group. Revised May 11, 2011 to authorize general education credit for courses waiting for permanent numbers. Revised May 22, 2013 to make clear that repeatable courses are not assigned groups satisfying status. Revised May XX, 2015 to remove the Inter-College General Education Review Committee (ICGER) from the review and approval process.

1. Group-satisfying courses in Arts and Letters, Social Science, and Science must meet the following general criteria:

1.1. Group-satisfying courses in arts and letters must create meaningful opportunities for students to engage actively in the modes of inquiry that define a discipline. Proposed courses must be broad in scope and demonstrably liberal in nature (that is, courses that promote open inquiry from a variety of perspectives). Though some courses may focus on specialized subjects or approaches, there must be a substantial course content locating that subject in the broader context of the major issues of the discipline. Qualifying courses will not focus on teaching basic skills but will require the application or engagement of those skills through analysis and interpretation.

1.2. Group-satisfying courses in the social sciences must be liberal in nature rather than being professionally oriented or limited to the performance of professional skills. They must cover a representative cross-section of key issues, perspectives, and modes of analysis employed by scholars working on the subject matter addressed by the course. The subject matter of the course will be relatively broad, e.g., involving more than one issue, place, or time. Courses with an emphasis on methods and skills will satisfy the requirement only if there is also a substantial and coherent theoretical component.

1.3. Group-satisfying courses in the sciences should introduce students to the foundations of one or more scientific disciplines, or should provide an introduction to fundamental methods (such as mathematics) that are widely used in scientific disciplines. Courses should introduce students to the process of scientific reasoning.

No discussion, passes unanimously.

4.2      US15/16-17: Policy on Confidentiality of Student Health Care and Survivors’ Services Information; Senate Executive Committee

The GCO has proposed redlined revisions to the emergency policy, here. The money graph is in the definitions at the end, although I think there will be new revisions from the GCO proposed at the meeting.

Screen Shot 2016-03-09 at 2.11.02 PM

Yes, there is a new amendment from the GCO, replacing that above. It’s on the Senate screen now, I’m trying to find a link to it. Sorry.

Bonine: Motion to divide the amendment and approve the 2nd paragraph. Passes unanimously.

On to the first paragraph: Burns has questions about the “firewall”. GC Reed discusses the “risk management team” and a situation where it might help deal with, say, a suicidal student.

Harbaugh asks if the “risk management team” would also include GCO reps dealing with malpractice. Reed says yes. Health Center Director Richard Brunader, MD explains his motivation for the amendments – allow his practitioners access to legal advice. [Sounds reasonable, but so long as the GCO provides that advice, which may require info from the counseling records, and also defends UO, the firewall seems flammable.]

Bonine: The amendment is not for litigation situations, correct? Reed: Correct. Bonine points out that the amendment will modify paragraph 3, which deals explicitly with litigation. Bonine suggests a simple amendment to the amendment to fix this issue so that the providers can get legal advice when they need it, without allowing GCO to get records in litigation like Jane Doe.

Reed: Thinks this creates a potential problem. Bonine points out it doesn’t.

Freyd: Don’t practitioners have malpractice insurance and access to independent legal advice outside the GCO?

[Missed name] points out that the original GCO amendment uses “student” instead of “patient/client”. Problematic. We’ll need another amendment to the amendment.

Ahlen: So the GCO amendment would allow the release of redacted student records w/o their consent?

Reed: Yes.

Espinoza: Let’s step back. What’s the problem that needs to be addressed?

Reed: Practitioners need legal advice. Emergency policy doesn’t seem to allow that.

Brunader: Recent case – parent called, I couldn’t figure out if I could talk to them, or how or if I could get advice about this from the GCO.

[This has been a very interesting and I think productive discussion.]

Randy suggests a motion to postpone.

Reed: I’ve discussed with Schill, we want to get this done today.

Psaki: The GCO asked the Senate to approve an amendment that we didn’t see on screen until today. We deserve more time.

Bonine: We can postpone this til 4/6, we’ve been working with the GC collaboratively.

But it will expire 4/1.

Ahlen: Pass today, with the understanding that we’ll tweek in collaboration with GCO?

Bonine: Sounds good to me. Reed: Sounds good to me too. Schill likes it too.

Dreiling moves to replace student with client/patient. Passes unanimously.

Bonine: One more amendment. In Paragraph 4, “officials” changed to “employees” in the last sentence, so that a counselor or doctor could ask for the University to pay for an independent lawyer.”  Passes unanimously.

Revised policy passes unanimously. Very productive, collaborative work by GCO Kevin Reed, John Bonine, and the Senate as a whole.

4.3      US15/16-21: Revision of the Code of Ethics in Response to Feedback from the University President; Senate Executive Committee

Screen Shot 2016-03-09 at 2.06.02 PM

Sullivan postpones on the grounds no one cares about this policy.

3:45 pm    5.   Open Discussion 5.1 Proposed Mandatory Live In policy for all new incoming students.

Max Burns (UO student, Senator, ASUO Senator).

Argues that this will be a big cost increase for incoming UO students, on top of tuition increases. Low income students hit particularly hard.

On process grounds, argues that the university should have done more due diligence.

ASUO has voted against this.

Ahlen: Students have been asking about exemptions. Is housing prepared to provide culturally appropriate services to international students, for example.

Sullivan: Can VPSA Holmes tell us where this policy is?

Holmes: This was Mike Gottfredson’s idea, motivated by financial concerns from Housing when live-in rates fell below 80%. [Yes, she really said that.] It’s already approved policy and will go into effect in 2017. We can’t afford to the bond payments for renovating dorms unless we can make the students use university housing.

Sullivan to Freinkel: Who was on the review committee you chaired? Robert Davis (Spanish), Middlebrook (English) and a bunch of administrators including the Associate Athletic Director (?!). Committee was unanimous in support. [Anyone know where the actual policy is?]

Sullivan asks Freinkel to forward the research used to support the policy.

4:15 pm    6.   Reports 6.1      Report from Faculty Athletics Representative (FAR); Tim Gleason

Gleason’s report is full of interesting information and omissions. Way better than O’Fallon, but that was a low bar. Not in his report:

The NCAA reported in November that only 17% of the Black Male athletes who started at UO in 2008 had graduated 6 years later. Only 44% of all Black Male students (includes athletes) entering UO in 2008 graduated:

Screen Shot 2015-11-12 at 11.35.46 AM Screen Shot 2015-11-12 at 11.35.21 AM

For comparison 67% of all students entering as freshman in 2008 had graduated from UO w/in 6 years. This is the most recent data. The cell sizes for gender/race are small, and percentages bounce around a lot. 17% is, from what I can tell, the historical low point for the Duck athletic department. The average is more on the order of 45%.

Gleason’s position on transparency has been problematic: but maybe he’ll turn the page on that.

Here’s what I asked him to provide to the Senate:

FAR Report to Senate:

Written report distributed 48 hours in advance, with Q&A at meeting and by email if time pressure.

Distribution of majors, online classes, classes transferred from other schools to meet UO requirements.

Admissions: Gleason not involved in admissions. Senate will want to see data on entering students including GPA/SAT etc.  Tim will try to get these from Admissions.

In general all data broken out by team, or by gender & revenue/non-revenue. Berkeley as a model. Gleason will clear FERPA with GCO.

Well-being: Time demands, travel schedules, procedures for checking for academic conflicts.

O’Heroes – rules and time demands? 

Follow-up after graduation – What happens to UO athletes after they’re done?

NCAA violation reports.

Heads up on coming NCAA legislation and outcomes of Jan convention. Senate/IAC should have input into UO’s position on these matters.

Update on AD efforts to prevent sexual violence.

Gleason: Three messages… Stay calm, all is well, but we’ll face challenges. Looks at distribution of majors, doesn’t see any funny business. 11% of athletes were “special admits”.

FWIW, here’s an example of the contract that the Ducks give their “student-athletes”. (This one is Brandon Austin’s, from his lawsuit against Mike Gottfredson et al.:)

Screen Shot 2016-03-09 at 4.48.22 PM

Balbuena, Psaki, and other senators press Gleason on his claims that all his well, and that all that can be done is being done.

That said, a huge improvement from O’Fallon. Thanks Tim.

4:50 pm    7.   Notice(s) of Motion

Dreiling: Motion on academic standards for online Gen-Ed courses.

4:50 pm    8.   Other Business

5:00 pm    9.   Adjournment

President Schill to hold reception supporting shared governance. This Wed 4-5PM Gehrlinger

Rumor has it that you will be able to fill out a paper copy of the committee volunteering form on the spot, and there will be lemonade and sweets.

Reception with president, Senate leaders aids shared governance

President Michael Schill at a reception last summer.

University Senate President Randy Sullivan is inviting the campus community to a reception with President Michael Schill and other members of the Senate leadership team to learn more about shared governance.

Nominations are now open for Senate and committee positions, and the event will be an opportunity to hear from campus leaders about the need for candidates and volunteers. Current members of committees and other panels also will be on hand to answer questions and discuss service opportunities.

The reception will be from 4 to 5 p.m. Wednesday, March 2, in the Gerlinger Lounge. Nominations will be open through Sunday, March 6.

[Full Disclosure: I stole this word for word from Around the O]

Senate: Athletics, Sports Products, counseling records, Stalin, Nazis, hookers

Rumor down at the faculty club is that Scalia is up for a posthumous honorary degree. Today at 3PM, Knight Library. Agenda hereLive video here.

Update: Turns out I was wrong about Scalia getting an honorary degree. The National Inquirer has the shocking truth, and the NYT documents that this wasn’t Scalia’s first “rodeo”, as they say in El Paso:

 Screen Shot 2016-02-25 at 12.43.21 PM

Semi-live blog: Usual disclaimer. My opinion of what people said, meant, or should have said or meant. Nothing is a quote unless in quotes.

Browsing Room, Knight Library; 3:00-5:00 pm

3:00 pm    Introductory Remarks, Senate President Randy Sullivan

3:05 pm    1.   Call to Order

3:05 pm    2.   Approval of Minutes

2.1      February 10, 2016

3:15 pm    4.   New Business

4.1      US15/16-12: New Program Approval, M.S. in Sports Product Design; Scott Pratt, Dean of the Graduate School

Harbaugh asked some tough – and therefore civil – questions of Coltrane on the funding, quoting from Coltrane’s own last minute MOU giving AAA $5.3M:

Screen Shot 2016-02-24 at 8.57.50 PM

Coltrane evades as he often does, but says the HECC has also asked that these sorts of proposals come with more useful financial info.

Laura Lee McIntyre (School Psychology) objects to Harbaugh (Economics) asking economic questions in the Senate. Sullivan (Chemistry) defends economics.

Craig Parsons (Poli Sci) attempts to connect Harbaugh’s economic questions to the Nazis – the first known invocation of Goodwin’s Law in the UO Senate. (Craig apologized profusely afterwards for the Nazi comment. I told him no worries, I’d have fun blogging about it. Maybe too much fun.)

Harbaugh says he supports the proposal (the Sports Product Design proposal, not the tenets of National Socialism) despite the unsatisfactory answers to economic questions involving general fund support for this and the related SPM program from Coltrane.

Program passes unanimously.

4.2      US15/16-18: Revision of the Membership of the Graduate Council; Senate Executive Committee

Amended to make it a non-voting member to act as a liaison.  Passes unanimously.

4.3      US15/16-19: Revision of the Policy on Conferral of Posthumous Degrees; Senate Executive Committee

Comes from the administration, cleanup of burdensome procedures in current policy. Still some issues, Bonine (Law) catches some other issues. Amended, passes unanimously.

3:50 pm    5.   Open Discussion

5.1       Accelerated Learning

HECC is considering proposals to drastically expand programs by which HS teachers can award college credit for HS classes.

What could possibly go wrong? Sue Eveland (Registrar) has a few thoughts…. So does the rest of the Senate.

Sullivan asks why we have not heard from UO’s much admired Ed School on these proposals?

5.2       US15/16-17: Policy on Confidentiality of Student Health Care and Survivors’ Services Information

GC Kevin Reed presents some issues with the current emergency policy, involving the Health Center leaderships need to see records for QC, and the GC’s need to perform its risk management function.

Sullivan asks where in the revisions is here any indication of the firewall that Reed said there would be between the Health Center and the long list of UO officials that would be allowed, under the revisions, to access confidential student counseling records. VPSL Robin Holmes could get them? WTF?

GC Kevin Reed’s answers are less than satisfying.

Bonine praises the existing emergency policy, which he helped write, but wants to see the rationale for these amendments before the Senate votes. Counseling Center Director Shelly Kerr tried to hide the paper trail. Could that happen again?

We’re getting into the weeds on this. Bitter weeds that have cost UO millions and incalculable reputational damage, and which must be rooted out lest they reseed themselves, as weeds will do.

Bonine goes on, in a harangue worthy of Stalin’s speech to the 19th Party Congress, but longer. Sullivan bangs him into silence. Good for Randy. More good questions on the revisions come from David Espinoza (Counseling) and John Ahlen (International Affairs).

4:45 pm    6.   Reports

6.1      Report from Faculty Athletics Representative (FAR); Tim Gleason

It took years, but back in 2013 we finally got former FAR Jim O’Fallon to deliver a long-winded report. Boy was he mad. Nothing in writing as Senate rules require, of course. Video here. He starts at 102:30 and goes on for quite a while.

Screen Shot 2013-12-18 at 10.12.25 PM

I asked our new FAR, Tim Gleason, to give the Senate the following information for his report, in writing:

FAR Report to Senate:

Written report distributed 48 hours in advance, with Q&A at meeting and by email if time pressure.

Distribution of majors, online classes, classes transferred from other schools to meet UO requirements.

Admissions: Gleason not involved in admissions. Senate will want to see data on entering students including GPA/SAT etc.  Tim will try to get these from Admissions.

In general all data broken out by team, or by gender & revenue/non-revenue. Berkeley as a model. Gleason will clear FERPA with GCO.

Well-being: Time demands, travel schedules, procedures for checking for academic conflicts.

O’Heroes – rules and time demands? 

Follow-up after graduation – What happens to UO athletes after they’re done?

NCAA violation reports.

Heads up on coming NCAA legislation and outcomes of Jan convention. Senate/IAC should have input into UO’s position on these matters.

Update on AD efforts to prevent sexual violence.

The Senate did not receive a written report from Gleason until just before (during?) the meeting. Mea Culpa: This was largely due to Harbaugh’s lateness in meeting with Gleason to discuss what info would be most useful for the Senate report.

Harbaugh, taking the gavel after Sullivan’s sudden departure from the meeting, (he’s fine, touch of the flu) suggests to Gleason that he come back after the Senate has had time to digest his written report. Gleason likes this idea, and so does the Senate, which breaks into applause.

The Senate then returns to some additional discussion of the counseling confidentiality policy. Bonine asserts personal privilege to object to something Reed said about him earlier (sorry, I forget what) and Reed’s comments that it is not helpful to rehash the history of the General Counsel office’s botched grab of Jane Doe’s counseling records.

Harbaugh asserts personal privilege to invoke the memory of his father and note that history can be useful. Which is not something I ever thought I would need to say in a University Senate meeting.

4:45 pm    7.   Notice(s) of Motion

Max Burns (AAD grad student) gives notice of a motion to object to plans to compel UO freshmen to live on campus, in what some have called a thinly veiled attempt to justify building a new dorm that can be used to house the “IAAF Family” in the style to which they have become accustomed.

4:45 pm    8.   Other Business


5:00 pm    9.   Adjournment

The Senate completes another exciting session on time.

Athletics, administration, academic programs — everything’s on the table.

Or is it? At yesterday’s 3PM Senate meeting Provost Coltrane said all units would be asked to plan for a 2% cut, even athletics. At the 1:30PM IAC meeting AAD for Finance Eric Roedl said that President Schill had not asked athletics to make a cut.

Meanwhile the headline above is from UC-Berkeley. Their admistration is working with their Senate to make cuts, as explained in InsideHigherEd, here:

That prognosis had one caveat: that Berkeley continue its strong tradition of shared governance. [University Senate President and Economics Professor Benjamin Hermalin] said he’d been relatively pleased with the level of administrative collaboration and disclosure thus far, and said that must continue in order for the process to succeed.

“Faculty will not accept a top-down solution, and faculty not accepting it will make it impossible to implement,” he said. “That’s not a threat, it’s just the way we work here. And I think everyone understands that, whether they’re an assistant professor or the chancellor.”

Here at UO, we’ve had much more transparency from President Schill than in the past. But no engagement with the Senate about budgeting and academic priorities. And getting basic budget info still requires public records requests:

MOUs Provost, Deans

Initial Request Date: 02/03/2016, Status: Requesting/Reviewing Records

This is a public records request for copies of any MOUs or other agreements between the UO Provost and UO Deans regarding financial commitments or obligations regarding transfers to or from college budgets. This request covers the period of 1/1/2012 to the present.

MOUs Provost, Pres, UO Foundation, Athletics

Initial Request Date: 02/03/2016, Status:  Requesting/Reviewing Records

This is a public records request for copies of any MOUs or other agreements between the UO Provost’s office, UO President’s office, or other UO offices, or the UO Foundation, and the UO athletic department regarding financial commitments or obligations. This request covers the period of 1/1/2009 to the present.


Senate meets at 3PM on course repeats, realignment, AAD, Sports PM

Wednesday, February 10, 2016
Browsing Room, Knight Library
Agenda  |  Watch Live

Old business note: Last meeting the Senate spent a lot of time on IT policies, over concerns that there was no clear campus policy governing when administrators could access faculty and staff email. The GCO has now approved a “procedure” for this, here: links to

And while procedures can be changed without notice, this new procedure seems to have satisfied everyone involved as a practical and expedient solution.

DRAFT Senate Meeting Agenda – February 10, 2016

Browsing Room, Knight Library; 3:00-5:00 pm

3:00 pm    Introductory Remarks, Senate President Randy Sullivan

3:05 pm    1.   Call to Order

3:05 pm    2.   Approval of Minutes 2.1      January 27, 2016

3:15 pm    4.   New Business

4.1      Motion (Policy Proposal): US15/16-15: Course Repeat Policy; Frances White (Anthropology),Academic Council

Great idea, passes unanimously, thanks Frances!

4.2      Motion: Policy Proposal): US15/16-16: Revision of the Membership of the Committee on Sexual and Gender-Based Violence; Randy Sullivan (Chemistry & Biochemistry), Senate President

Passes unanimously.

3:50 pm    5.   Open Discussion

5.1       Reallocation of Resources Process and Budget Model; Brad Shelton (Interim Vice President for Research) and Jamie Moffitt (Vice President of Finance &Administration and Chief Financial Officer) – tentative

Sorry, I”m mostly listening not blogging.

Statement from Gina Psaki, from Romance Languages (I’ll post when I get a copy).

Marcus’s 2014 budget memo to Scott, here, from the Presidential Archives

And here’s some national info on this, courtesy of a reader:

At least this time the faculty didn’t have to do anything unlawful to find out what’s up – Schill has some of it posted on the IR website, here. But not everything. Meanwhile, it’s been a week, still no response, for the MOU’s showing where the money has gone:

This is a public records request for copies of any MOUs or other agreements between the UO Provost and UO Deans regarding financial commitments or obligations regarding transfers to or from college budgets.

5.2        US15/16-12: New Program Approval, M.S. Sports Product Design

To be discussed at the next meeting, 2/24.

5.3        US15/16-13: New Program Approval, B.A./B.S. Arts Management

I wanted this held over for 2 weeks so the Academic Council could look at the grade distributions in the AAD courses and the online quality and cheating issues, and the TTF/NTTF imbalance. Here are my notes:

Not in any way disparaging the intellectual quality of the department or the importance of its work.

1) This proposal is at odds with the new emphasis on increasing TTF. Courses will be taught in part by NTTF.

2) Online classes: AAD’s current online classes have very high grades, very popular. AAD has no systems to detect on-line cheating, verify identity.

The budget  model gives strong incentives for these classes and adding a major: $141 per SCH, $1660 per major, $1559 per degree.

The fact that these are classified as Gen Ed 1 and MC classes takes students away from Hum – part of the strong incentives from the budget model – too strong.

Summarizing: AAD should deal with these online course issues and the TTF/NTTF imbalance before adding a new major.

And I put up the data on the grade distributions for the 75 largest UO classes,

Screen Shot 2016-02-10 at 8.29.49 PM

More later, but the AAD major proposal passed overwhelmingly

5.4        Confidentiality of Student Health Care and Survivors’ Services Information policy

No time.

4:45 pm    6.   Reports

4:45 pm    7.   Notice(s) of Motion

7.1       US15/16-xx: Confidentiality of Student Health Care and Survivors’ Services Information policy

7.2       US15/15-xx: Change membership of Graduate Council to include member from the Committee on

4:45 pm    8.   Other Business

5:00 pm    9.   Adjournment

UO Senate meets today on IT, ethics, diversity. 3PM in Knight Library

The agenda is below, I’ll try and live-blog some. Video here. The IDEAL framework is UO’s latest attempt at a diversity plan. Read it.

In other diversity news, UO’s former Diversity Director Charles Martinez will be at the Eugene City Club on Friday, with a panel of UO minority student leaders. Looks very interesting, follow the link for more information and bios.

The Neglected Few: Students of Color and Their Experience on the UO Campus

Guest Speakers:
Perla Alvarez (MEChA: Movimiento Estudiantil Chican@ de Aztlan)
Dante Haruna (QTPOC: Queer-Trans People of Color)
Shaniece Curry (BWA: Black Women of Achievement)
Gerald Jakabosky, Co Director (APASU: Asian Pacific American Student Union)

Program Coordinator: Lisa Arkin

This panel of University of Oregon undergraduate student leaders represents diverse organizations dedicated to supporting students of color on campus. The groups serve as hubs for students of color to meet and plan events and programs that advance efforts to educate the community about diversity on campus.

The first questioner will be Dr. Charles Martinez, Department Head and Professor for Educational Methodology, Policy, and Leadership, University of Oregon.

And an anonymous reader points us to this National Review report mocking UO students for debating the MLK quote in the EMU. I wonder what William F. Buckley thinks about the fact that the magazine he founded is now posting click-bait that ridicules college students for debating serious questions about race and gender?

Fortunately UO student reporter Macy Hyland has a more intelligent article about the debate, in the Daily Emerald here:

Laurie Woodward, the Director of the Student Union said that when she approached the union with the question of if they wanted to keep the current MLK quote or supplement a new one, one of the students asked, “Does the MLK quote represent us today?”

… Woodward says she has no idea if the quote will change again in the near future, but she’s merely excited that important discussions like this are being held on campus again. “What words are is important,” she says, “but what’s more important is that people think about what the words should be.”

Browsing Room, Knight Library; 3:00-5:00 pm

3:00 pm    Introductory Remarks, Senate President Randy Sullivan

3:05 pm    1.   Call to Order

3:05 pm    2.   Approval of Minutes

2.1      January 13, 2016

3:15 pm    4.   New Business

4.1      Motion (Policy Proposal): US 15/16-10: IT Security policies; Colin Koopman (Philosphy), Senator

Colin Koopman (Philosophy) worked with Will Laney from IT and a Senate workgroup to revise the original emergency policies, which had some issues, particularly regarding administrators access to faculty and staff emails.

Q from Ahlen: Impetus was an incident regarding admin access to staff emails. SEIU cannot consent to this policy as is. Taylor explains that the impetus was that, during a union grievance, an HR employee authorized full read-write access to the employees email by an administrator. SEIU won the grievance, and we need to have that codified before we endorse this policy.

Laney: I agree we need to have this in the procedure, GC’s office tells me they will have a draft of that tomorrow.

Taylor: We need to have language requiring a “compelling business need” to access employees email.

And things get interesting …

Koopman: We can pass these as policies now, and if the procedures then do not come back with email protection you can come back to the Senate.

Motion to postpone fails, motion to approve policies passes.

Let’s hope the email procedure is solid.

4.2      Motion: Policy Proposal): US15/16-11: Code of Ethics; Randy Sullivan (Chemistry & Biochemistry), Senate President

The original policy came to us via OUS and Chuck Triplett, and was pretty bad. Randy dropped all their language, and wrote this. I’m no ethicist, but it’s a huge improvement.

Lovinger (Architecture) Proposes amendment to include environmental sustainability. Harbaugh opposes on the grounds we shouldn’t draft language on the floor. Amendment fails, policy passes.

3:50 pm    5.   Open Discussion 

Review of IDEAL Framework; Sari Pascoe, Office of Equity & Inclusion

Here’s a link to the final version of UO’s 2006 Diversity plan. This was sent to the Senate by President Frohnmayer and approved after a contentious set of meetings, during which it came out that the administration had agree to hire a diversity director and prepare a diversity plan as part of the legal settlement with Joe Wade, an African-American administrator who had sued Frohnmayer and Provost John Moseley for discrimination in hiring. Frohnmayer had kept this hidden from the faculty and even from the person he hired as Diversity Director.

That diversity director left, and was replaced by Charles Martinez (Education). After faculty complaints about the text and the process, Martinez heavily revised the plan and Frohnmayer brought it to the Senate. There was a healthy debate, the minutes are here. One snippet:

Senator Chris Ellis, economics, then rose to oppose the motion. He felt everyone in the room believed diversity was a good thing because they cared about some of the underlying problems in our society. However, Senator Ellis felt that the current plan was fundamentally and logically flawed, and as such, could not achieve its goals. He noted that there was a large body of literature on the economics of education and he introduced some issues raised in that literature. One issue is that economically disadvantaged people historically do poorly in education, and Blacks and Hispanics have been historically poor, thus there are not enough persons in these underrepresented groups to fill the “pipeline” to become college undergraduates and graduates from which to make hires. He suggested the proposed plan does not address the pipeline issue. He concluded by noting that there is a large bureaucracy with a large budget devoted to diversity already, and he was concerned about resource questions. He proposed putting our resources into resolving the pipeline issue.

The plan was approved. It included a very expansive definition of diversity, and explicit recognition that “diversity of thought” was of primary interest to the university, given our academic mission. Income and class and political beliefs were also included:

Screen Shot 2016-01-27 at 12.14.59 PM

Screen Shot 2016-01-27 at 12.21.47 PM

The language in the newly proposed 2015-16 diversity plan, here, is much less inclusive, focusing on race and ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, and disability status:

Screen Shot 2016-01-27 at 12.25.32 PM


Screen Shot 2016-01-27 at 4.12.11 PM

Sullivan: I asked VP Alex-Assensoh what the Senate could do to help with diversity, she asked us to get involved in the IDEAL process.

More on the OEI page here.

[Sorry, I’m listening not blogging.]

Psaki: Concerned about the faculty review part. During bargaining, the faculty union was concerned that some faculty, particularly women and minorities, where not being recognized or rewarded for their work on equity and inclusion. The union and the administration agreed to language on this. In contrast this plan imposes a new unfunded time-mandate on all faculty, which was explicitly not part of what we agreed to.

Sullivan: The Senate will post this plan for discussion, and this is an example of the sorts of issues that should be raised.

Sullivan: Strategies for expediting the policy rollover.

We’re wasting way to much faculty, staff, administrator, and Senate time looking at policies and not enough on our core academic mission. [A cynic might say this is exactly why the board and administration decided to do policy-by-policy review.] Randy has some plans to speed things up and get us back to the basics.

4:45 pm    6.   Reports

6.1        Intertinstitutional Faculty Senate (IFS), January 22-23, 2016; Robert Kyr, Immediate UO Senate Past President, and incoming IFS President.

IFS is the umbrella organization for Senates from Oregon publics. After Lariviere’s firing, it was Join or Die. We joined, and now it’s great to know Kyr will be coordinating.

6.2        New Data on Student Credit Hours and Instructional Staffing; Provost Scott Coltrane

Coltrane: We’ve got data. [Yumm!]. Let’s look at a randomly chosen department, say, Economics:

Screen Shot 2016-01-27 at 4.39.09 PM

61% more Student Credit Hours, 7% more TT Faculty. Hmm. 100% more NTTF, but that was from a base of 1. So be careful interpreting these figures for your own department.

4:45 pm    7.   Notice(s) of Motion

7.1         Course Repeat Policy

7.2         New M.S. Program in Sports Product Design

7.3         New B.A./B.S. Program in Arts Management, AAD

4:45 pm    8.   Other Business

5:00 pm    9.   Adjournment

Schill and Coltrane at Senate meeting to consult on strategic plans

Agenda here. Video should be posted here in a day or two. My battery died so live-blogging stopped after a little of the Q&A, sorry.

Cocktail party version of the 1/13/2015 Senate meeting:

President Schill and Provost Coltrane provided a clear justification for the realignment of resources towards what counts for the AAU and for research/teaching excellence.  They outlined the plan and promised to implement their realignment proposals on the basis of data, and with plenty of consultation with the faculty, OA’s, and staff, in order to incorporate knowledge that’s not in the data.

Schill got many tough questions – though none about athletics money or the diversion of students from CAS humanities and some social-science fields into new professional school gen-ed courses and new undergrad programs in law, AAD etc. He gave straightforward answers. He promised more information than has ever been provided to the faculty before, both in terms of staffing numbers and budget data showing where the money has been going. I think he’s as curious as we are. We were told it would be posted on the IR website over the next few days and weeks.

Best of the Q&A: Schill: I’m not a robot, I don’t make all decisions by the numbers, I assume that’s why you wanted me. Or not. Professor: We want you.

As for Coltrane? It was as if he’d been released from a long, dark spell:

Now the hard part starts.

Senate Agenda, Library Browsing Room, Knight Library

3:00 pm Introductory Remarks, Senate President Randy Sullivan

3:05 pm 1. Call to Order

3:05 pm 2. Approval of Minutes

2.1 December 2, 2015

3:15 pm 4. New Business

4.1 IFS Election

Candidates: Robert Kyr (Music), Dejing Dou (Computer and Information Science)

The IFS meets regularly with the HECC. The IFS website is here:

Kyr elected unanimously.

5.1 Topics: The President’s recent letter to the campus and the strategic plan.

President Schill’s letter  to faculty here. Letter to admins below.

Schill: We’re asking donors and state and students to pay more, we have an obligation to do more and spend money wisely. Short run, need savings to get $4M for new tenure track faculty. Long run, need to redo Shelton’s budget model. We’ll do both, in consultation with colleges, departments, Senate.

Pitches centralization as way of saving money and increasing accountability, starting with Communications and IT.

Promises transparency. Work in progress – we’re telling you now, before plans are developed in detail, to prove it.

The message is not cuts. We’re going to growing and getting better, facing the future optimistically, investing in graduate education and undergraduate success. Not retrenchment – reallocation of resources, to ensure future eminence.

Letter to admins:

January 13, 2006

To: Scott Coltrane, Senior Vice President and Provost
Jamie Moffitt, Vice President for Finance & Administration & CFO
Mike Andreasen, Vice President for Advancement
Kyle Henley, Vice President for Communication
Yvette Alex-Assensoh, Vice President for Equity and Inclusion
Kevin Reed, Vice President and General Counsel
Brad Shelton, Interim Vice President for Research and Innovation
Roger Thompson, Vice President for Enrollment Management
Robin Holmes, Vice President for Student Life

From: Michael Schill, President

Re: Central Administrative Budget Cuts

Date: January 13, 2016

As you are aware from our conversations and my recent message to campus, it is imperative that we look for ways to better align our limited resources with the institution’s strategic priorities for academic excellence. To that end, we have dedicated significant recurring funding to tenure track faculty hires and the new clusters of excellence, as well as student retention and graduation initiatives. Additionally, while our budgets are tight, growing costs and investments in the area of labor agreements, health care costs, IT infrastructure, Title IX, and PERS are going to put additional pressure on our limited resources. For this reason, this spring I am launching a two-stage process to reduce our central administrative cost base.

The first step will involve a two percent direct cut on all general fund central administrative budgets, effective July 1, 2016 (FY2017). Given current administrative budget levels, I expect this cut to generate nearly $3 million of recurring funding that can be reinvested in institutional strategic priorities. I know and understand that our current staffing levels are lean and that it will be difficult to implement this cut. However, I expect each of you to look strategically in your portfolios and determine the best way to manage this budget reduction. I do not expect you to simply impose a two percent budget cut evenly across your units. Instead, I expect you to assess your operations for savings that will have the least impact on our core strategic objectives.

As we strategically align our general fund resources, it is critical that we pay attention to our students’ total cost of education. For this reason, it is important that we do not simply shift expenses to auxiliary funds. While this may be a less painful way in the short term to address the general fund cut, it will ultimately lead to higher fees and costs charged to our students.

In addition to implementing this two percent cut, I also expect vice presidents to actively manage their portfolio budgets to best align their resources with the institution’s strategic objectives: (1) building our academic and research profile, (2) keeping our university affordable to students and ensuring their success, and (3) creating a rich undergraduate experience in a diverse and inclusive community. I will be scheduling a series of review meetings the week of March 14 to discuss (1) your critical strategic initiatives for FY17, (2) how you have aligned resources to meet these goals, and (3) what steps you took to achieve the two percent budget savings in your portfolio.

In addition to the immediate, direct administrative budget cut, I also am launching an initiative to assess opportunities for longer term administrative cost savings based on targeted projects focused on centralization of services, strategic sourcing, and business process redesign. While these savings will take longer to capture, our goal will be to identify the equivalent of another three percent (roughly $4.5 million) of additional administrative cost savings over the next two to three years.

The budget office is currently updating BANNER budgets to account for changes related to the recent salary increase process, as well as updates to PEBB costs. Once these budgets are loaded, we will distribute updated general fund figures, as well as data regarding the exact size of the two percent budget cut for each Vice Presidential portfolio. If you have any questions about these figures, please contact Jamie Moffitt.

Provost Coltrane:

Introduces 5-year Strategic Plan, here.  Explains that the CAS realignment followed below will be implemented in other colleges. Will get similar data for other colleges out soon. Will post these data on IR website. Preliminary, focus is on getting info out soon to identify problems, allow consultation.

There will also be a similar process for administrative departments. Budget model redesign will be led by Brad Shelton, with consultation with Senate.

Resources will be reallocated to make us a stronger research university. We will add money for 40 new fellowships, most for PhDs. Money will be available now, for this years recruiting of grad students for fall.

CAS example:

CAS Dean Andrew Marcus letter here.

Screen Shot 2016-01-13 at 3.04.08 PM

Check full letter for breakout by CAS division.

No reduction in the total number of GTF lines, but there will be reallocations across departments.


Margerum (AAA): Wondering how AAU metrics work for departments like his w/ no PhD students. Schill. Goal is excellence, we’re not a slave to metrics, but we’d like to increase # of PhD students. Different metrics for different departments – e.g. Law, MBA… . Coltrane: Our first focus is PhD’s though.

Clemmons (Business): Big revenue stream is CA undergrads. Is that changing? Schill: Yes, that is how we’ve subsidized Oregon students. Oregon students are key for us. But there’s a dip in Oregon HS students coming, might see some changes but no plans as of now. Demand for students is robust, in part because of athletics. [Serves up anecdote about admissions even at Alamo Bowl… Yes, if you recruit students at a bowl game, students will tell you that they care about the Ducks.]

Psaki (Romance Lang): Letter talked about poorly performing programs and excellence. What are the criteria for distinguishing this, and wouldn’t past resource allocation matter to what deptartments are now pocketed with excellence? Schill: That will be done by provost and the deans we are now hiring. That said I’d look at research productivity, teaching awards…. UO has done so much with so little … Psaki: yes. Schill: Only thing that would get me mad would be a department that thinks it’s “good enough”. Psaki: I know lots of UO humanities departs that are fabulous. I read – or tried to read – Coltrane’s Strategic Plan. Doesn’t seem like lots of room for humanities. How did it happen that these are not institutional priorities? Our “yield rates” are low because we have $13.5K fellowships while other schools have $23.5?

Schill: Maybe I should shut up, but I’m not a robot, don’t make all decisions by the numbers, I assume that’s why you wanted me. Come talk to me. Psaki: Yes, we want you.

[Sorry, battery dying, no more live blog.]

4:45 pm 6. Reports

4:45 pm 7. Notice(s) of Motion

4:45 pm 8. Other Business

5:00 pm 9. Adjournment


President Schill will be at the Senate meeting this Wednesday, 3-5PM in the Knight Library browsing room, to answer questions about the budget realignment letter he sent out Friday (post and comments here.) My takeaway is that the realignment is about keeping us in the AAU short-term, by shifting money towards research, more tenure-track faculty, and more grad student fellowships. Some pain will come with the gains.

Strategic Plan:

UO’s last plan was former Interim Provost Jim Bean’s 2009 Academic Plan – a yada-yada document that was so completely ignored nobody even noticed that it was never finalized. I don’t think our new leadership is going to let us down like that. They’ve been busy drafting plans to get UO back on track, and they’ve now started the process of presenting those plans to the university, getting feedback, and finalizing and implementing them.

Presumably Provost Coltrane will also be at this meeting, to answer questions about the 5-year Strategic Framework plan he developed in consultation with faculty, and released this afternoon. That’s longer run, and Coltrane is pretty clear that with current resource constraints much of it is aspirational. The website is here. The 11 page draft document is here:

Continue reading

Senate meets 3-4:30PM Wed in Browsing Room, then BOT reception

Synopsis: The UO Senate:

a) voted to let the Faculty Advisory Council keep having its confidential meetings with the President,

b) sent a warning shot across the bow of UOPD Chief Carolyn McDermed on community policing (rumor has it that McDermed will be leaving in June), and

c) had a successful meet and greet with the UO Trustees and JH leadership.

The latter on the initiative of President Schill, who seems to have a good grasp of the important role of cocktail parties in effective shared governance. Rob Mullens even showed up – something he won’t do for an IAC meeting.

12/2/2015: Topics include approval of new courses and more debate on FAC confidentiality. The meeting ends at 4:25 for a reception hosted by President Schill from 4:30 – 6:00 pm in the Susie Papé Room of the Jordan Schnitzer Museum of Art. Remember, if you can’t make this meeting you can send a substitute – details here

DRAFT: Senate Meeting Agenda – December 2, 2015 – 

Browsing Room, Knight Library; 3:00-5:00 pm

3:00 pm    Introductory Remarks, Senate President Randy Sullivan

3:10 pm    1.   Call to Order

3:10 pm    2.   Approval of Minutes. 2.1      November 11, 2015

3:15 pm    4.   New Business

4.1       IFS Election (third UO Senator and member of statutory faculty)
Candidates so far: Robert Kyr (Music), Nathan Tublitz (Biology), Dejing Dou (Computer and Information Science

Postponed til Jan.

4.2       US15/16-09: Approval of Curriculum Report, Fall Term 2015; Frances White (Anthropology), Chair of UO Committee on Courses

Approved unanimously.

4.3      Motion: Extension of US14/15-92: Regarding Negotiations on Recent Senate Legislation; Bill Harbaugh (Economics), Senator

Postponed until Jan.

4.4       US15/16-06 (Legislation – Returning): Revision of Faculty Advisory’s charge and exemption fromSenate Open Meetings rule; Committee on Committees

Passes after a long discussion.

4.5       US15/16/-04 (Resolution – Returning): Improving Effectiveness of the UO Police Department; Frank Stahl (Biology) and John Nicols (History), Emeritus

Embattled Police Chief McDermed shows up. Supports general notion, says police need a balance between community policing and the physical deterrent of a police car with sirens. Reports that use of police cars has saved two lives – one on campus, one in Spencer view.

Senator McIntire asks why the Senate is dealing with this. Not an academic matter. Sullivan explains that for a resolution, Senate can take up anything. Psaki argues it’s an important matter for campus climate, which in turn matters for academics.

Ahlen: Would like more clarity about police policy in general, now that McDermed is here.

Burns (student): As an RA, thinks UOPD has been very helpful with safety in the dorms. But knows that many students do not feel safe with the fact that the police are armed, would prefer unarmed campus safety. Asks McDermed to comment.

McDermed: We are trying to get out of cars more, learn about campus.

Frazee: At orientation, parents are quite relieved to learn that we have armed police who can respond quickly by vehicles.

Hansen: Puts in pitch for police using hoverboards.

Nicols: Frank Stahl and I know that there are many controversial issues with police. This is a start.

Question is called. Resolution passes with a slight majority.

4:30, Meeting adjourns.

4:30 pm    5.   Open Discussion

5.1        Topics: President Schill’s proposal for ensuring access and success:

1. Expand number of Tenure-Track faculty on campus
2. Access & Affordability
3. Great Student Experience

4:45 pm    6.   Reports

4:45 pm    7.   Notice(s) of Motion

4:45 pm    8.   Other Business

5:00 pm    9.   Adjournment


Pretty packed agenda. Summer session changes look good. Substitute Senator motion should go smoother the 4th time around. Who the hell knows what’s in the policy repeals except Triplett? The police motion unfortunately comes well short of calling for real reform – starting with replacing Chief McDermed – but it’s a start.

The motion to keep Faculty Advisory Council meetings confidential will get lots of discussion (see below and in the comments) and will I hope then pass. My position?

Any president needs a group of people they can brainstorm with, try out ideas, and discuss things like potential donations and personnel changes, without having to worry it will show up in the papers, or some nasty muckraking blog. If we don’t pass this I assume Schill will stop coming to FAC meetings and set up his own confidential advisory group.

Approving this legislation means we ensure that the faculty (and OA’s) elect the people who give the president confidential advice. Voting against it means that JH will hand-pick them.

I was elected to the IAC in 2010, so I was on it through two of UO’s more disastrous recent years. Now that was an education. (Full disclosure: I was elected again for this year, and I’m also ex-officio as Senate VP.)

So one final reason to vote for this legislation is that anyone can run for the FAC, get elected, and learn how universities function, or don’t. The more faculty who understand universities, the better for the faculty and for the universities. Although the OA’s are probably more important.

Senate Meeting Agenda – November 11, 2015, Browsing Room, Knight Library; 3:00-5:00 pm

3:00 pm    Introductory Remarks, Senate President Randy Sullivan

3:10 pm    1.   Call to Order

3:10 pm    2.   Approval of Minutes

2.1      October 21, 2015

3:15 pm    4.   New Business

4.1       US14/15-40 (Legislation – Returning): To Promote Representative Attendance at Senate Meetings; Senate Executive Committee

Passes unanimously.

4.2       US15/16-05 (Policy Proposal): Proposed Changes to Summer Term Calendar; Frances White (Anthropology), Co-Chair of the Academic Council

Mike Price (Math): Thank you Frances! Passes unanimously.

4.3       US15/16-07 (Policy Proposal): Repeal of IMDs 2.001-015 University System Curricula; Senate Executive Committee

Bonine: Amends to note that the UO Charter gives the faculty jurisdiction over curricula. Board of course has ultimate authority. Amendment and motion pass unanimously.

4.4       US15/16-08 (Policy Proposal): Repeal of OUS 05 Accreditation Reports; Senate Executive Committee

This one goes sideways. Poorly written motion from Triplett requires revision on the floor. Ahlen blows the whistle. Triplett claims the Senate has gotten too specific about motion wording in recent years, no need to give the UO policy number when repealing a policy. (How odd. Last year Triplett was saying we were too loose with the rules.) Effort to postpone to rewrite fails. I point out UO’s accreditation website is out of date. Hubin disagrees, but also says it will be updated shortly. Motion to repeal passes.

4.5       US15/16-06 (Legislation): Revision of Faculty Advisory Council’s charge and exemption from Senate Open Meetings rule; Bill Harbaugh (Economics), Chair of Committee on Committees

Lots of good discussion from Stahl and the Senators. Time runs out, we lose the quorum. Discussion will resume Dec. 2.

4.6       US15/16-04 (Resolution): Improving Effectiveness of the UO Police Department; Frank Stahl (Biology, Emeritus) and John Nicols (History, Emeritus), Statutory Faculty

No time.

4:30 pm    5.   Open Discussion

4:45 pm    6.   Reports

4:45 pm    7.   Notice(s) of Motion

4:45 pm    8.   Other Business

5:00 pm    9.   Adjournment

11/10/2015: Frank Stahl’s reasons for open FAC meetings

Continue reading