Executive Summary:
- Bean still confused by numbers.
- Alex-Assensoh makes friends.
- Tublitz’s motion on a performance review of Bean put off until Feb meeting, giving Bean a little more time to find a new job, maybe Rose-Hulman will bite.
- Motion requiring Gottfredson to tell Holmes and Eveland to stop stalling and give the IAC data on students and student-athletes, and showing Geller doesn’t know squat about FERPA passes unanimously.
- Kyr promised he will, as President of the Senate, formally request that the administration provide documents to the Senate in advance of February’s meeting and vote on the AD’s golf course. In addition, he will request that an informed administrator – presumably Rob Mullens – be present at the meeting to answer questions.
- Hubin promises to deliver heavily redacted version of Gottfredson’s calendar “soon”.
Live, more or less. Usual disclaimer applies. My impression of what people said, meant to say, or what I wished they’d said. Nothing a quote unless in ” “.
Yvette A-A:
Broad definition of diversity. Need to be rigorous, attend to methods, success. Need to be iterative, keep trying new things. Big change will be that EI activities will be spread out so as to provide resources to all doing this work. Very relaxed, confident, can’t discuss personnel but does want to involve people in programs and policies.
Q Dellabough: In future how will you improve transparency? Good answer, clear that she will consult on future policies.
Q Bonine: You have made structural changes, is there a way to involve faculty in these in the future? A: Yes, will use faculty on boards.
Q Psaki: Need more than boards, need wide representation.
Kyr and Simonds explain how to do motions. Very helpful.
Kyr: Data Access policy. Snoozer? Yes, admin sent it to us, exec committee said OK as is.
Tublitz: Performance review of Bean. Bean stays in room – good for him. Or is it intimidation? Nathan explains motion, very clear: symbolic, provost needs review. Substantial, Bean has not been reviewed. Precedent is Tomlin, etc.
Q Elliot: Why no reviews? A: just never happened.
Q Martinez: Has …
Pres wants reviews, committee for the previous motion on reviews still has not met.
Sullivan admits he was a messy kid, says so’s this administration, time to grab them by the collar and say now’s the time.
Student rep: Yes, put it in the rules.
Bonine – Can we put this off til next time? Moved, seconded, and approved. Surprise reprieve for Bean.
Harbaugh: Motion to let faculty see student records, even those of student-athletes. Passed unanimously.
Dellabough: IFS Senator reforms. Seems good. Passes unanimously.
Stahl: Faculty and OA’s etc excused from assignments including class for Senate meetings. Need to reschedule work. This is dragging on and on, seems reasonable as it.
Sayre: Fac Union report: Bargaining is happening, union has put up 30 proposals. Admins have put up 5 counters. Read them people! Union has been trying to incorporate existing policies, admins have been fighting this.
Reports:
Students want more study space and classrooms. Working on how to use what we have for now – Carson Hall? PE and Rec?
Drugs: McWhorter asked for extension.
Service: Reform is underway, starting w/ survey.
From the floor:
Harbaugh: In Feb I will be sponsoring Bob Doppelt’s motion on the Athletic Department’s new golf course. Will admin’s be present Feb to discuss golf, and will the AD provide documents?
Kyr: Yes. Provide me with a written request for the documents you need and who you want from the admin side and I will formally request the documents and their body, as President of the Senate.
Agenda 1/15/2013: The highlight will be Nathan Tublitz’s call for a long overdue performance review of Interim Provost Jim Bean. Bean was given the interim job by Frohnmayer without faculty input, promoted by Lariviere without faculty input, given a “health sabbatical”, then given a 2 year contract renewal by Berdahl without faculty input. And now it looks like President Gottfredson will be gone for this meeting, and will miss the faculty discussion on Bean.
I’ll try and live blog this but will miss first part.
Knight Library Room 101, 3:00‐5:00 pm
| 3:00 pm | 1. Call to Order | |||
| 1.1 | Approval of the Minutes of the November 7 & December 5, 2012 Senate Meetings | |||
| 3:05 pm | 2. State of the University | |||
| 2.1 | Remarks by Provost James C. Bean | |||
| 2.2 | Questions and Comments with Response | |||
| 2.3 | Remarks by Senate President Robert Kyr | |||
| 2.3.1 Election of Senate President-Elect | ||||
| 2.3.2 Search for Senate Executive Coordinator | ||||
| 3:25 pm | 3. Open Discussion | |||
| 3.1 | Yvette Alex-Assensoh, Vice President for Equity and Inclusion | |||
| 3.2 | Questions and Comments with Response | |||
| 3:45 pm | 4. New Business | |||
| 4.1 | Decision regarding Policy for Review: Data Access; | |||
| Robert Kyr, Senate President | ||||
| 4.2 | Motion (Legislation):Performance Review of Provost James C. Bean; | |||
| Nathan Tublitz, Professor (Biology) | ||||
| 4.3 | Motion (Legislation): Data and Documents for the IAC and Clarifying FERPA; | |||
| Bill Harbaugh, Professor (Economics) [See updated motion here] | ||||
| 4.4 | Motion (Legislation): UO Representation on the Interinstitutional Faculty Senate (IFS); | |||
| UO Senate Executive Committee, Kassia Dellabough (PODS), SEC member | ||||
| 4.5 | Motion (Legislation Resubmitted): Release Time to Enhance Senate Effectiveness; | |||
| Frank Stahl, Professor Emeritus (Biology) | ||||
| 4.6 | Motion (Legislation Resubmitted): Modification of Fiscal Impact Statement; | |||
| Frank Stahl, Professor Emeritus (Biology) | ||||
| 4:40 pm | 5. Reports | |||
| 5.1 | ASUO Report; Laura Hinman, ASUO President | |||
| 5.2 | UA Senate Liaison Committee; Gordon Sayre, Professor (English) | |||
| 5.3 | Updates on Motions; Robert Kyr, Senate President | |||
| 5.3.1 Motion on Faculty Input into Hiring Executive Administrators | ||||
| 5.3.2 Motion on Review of Executive Administrators | ||||
| 5.3.3 Motion on Study Space Prioritization | ||||
| 5.3.4 Motion on Classroom Space Prioritization | ||||
| 5.3.5 Report from IAC (Student Athlete Academic Status re: OAR on | ||||
| Random Drug Testing) | ||||
| 5.4 | Ten-Year Review of University Standing Committees; | |||
| Robert Kyr, Senate President | ||||
| 5.5 | Report from UO Police Department at February Senate Meeting | |||
| 4:55 pm | 6. Announcements and Communications from the Floor | |||
| 5:00 pm | 7. Adjournment | |||
President Gottfredson you mean?
whoops, fixed.
It’s just too bad this isn’t coming from someone besides Tublitz – stones and glass houses and such.
SO snide. Dear Anon, why didn’t YOU do it?
Snide and Anon, but it sounds like another yes vote. The faculty never should have let Lariviere get away with converting Bean to permanent without a search and alternative candidates. Who was Senate Pres then – Peter Gilkey?
I don’t think any of the reasons I didn’t do it, which are many, change the raw truth of my statement.
I’m glad someone is wiling to invest time in this place. My only issue… the notice of motion said that the review would be cost neutral Surely we stand to benefit through better decision making if Bean is subject to review. If the threat of review drives him away, all the better. Cost neutral… hardly. (Even after paying him off to leave, we’ll be ahead.)
Re: investing time in this place. The primary investment should be doing one’s job. If you’re doing your job and you have time to make a motion for an administrator performance review in the university senate, then I can respect that. But that isn’t the case here. And since the performance review is about just that – doing one’s job – there’s less credibility than I would like for something that comes across as poking a stick at an administrator.
Who is the candidate(s) for Senate President-Elect?
Obviously, we need to see the details behind those percentage numbers from the provost. It’s not worth commenting on them until then, since he has such a horrendous track record with percentage calculations and mixing baselines, as documented previously on this site.
Naah, we just need a new Provost. He’s an embarrassment.
This blog is at it’s best when it actually focuses on “UO Matters”. But, aside from “Bean sucks”, I can’t discern anything that he has done wrong. Again, I do appreciate the news on the U of O. But, I don’t understand some of the personal attacks.
Somebody has to go down for the faculty’s union debacle.
Dog on discernment
The principal failure of Bean is as follows:
1. Significantly increase the amount of undergrads as solution to budget dollars so the UO becomes almost completely tuition driven.
2. Do not increase the academic infrastructure (i.e. classrooms) to accommodate what will amount to a 40% increase.
3. Do not increase TTF (too expensive) but instead greatly increase adjuncts and NTTF so as to decrease the overall cost of teaching.
4. We are now into year 5 of this approach and in this dog’s opinion, the UO is not much different than a Community College except we have a better football team.
over our long term baseline.
But dog – how is increasing the amount of undergrads a solution to budget dollars if you also dramatically increase expenses (items 2 and 3)?
Dog on formatting error
item 2 should read
2. Do not increase the academic infrastructure (i.e. classrooms) to accommodate what will amount to a 40% increase
of undergrads over our long term baseline.
That means item 2 is not an Expensive increase.
For item 3 I explicitly state a *decrease*
Items 2 and 3 should have scaled with extra tuition dollars in a cost neutral. Instead we reversed scaled them and redirected those dollars away from our academic mission.
Yeah, that must be it.
EK: “For in my opinion it is one special prayse of many which are dew to this Poete, that he has labored to restore, as is their rightfull heritage, such good and naturall English words as having been long time out of use and almost cleane disherited. Which is the onely cause that our Mother tonge, which truely of it self is both ful enough for prose and stately enough for verse, hath lon time ben counted more bare and barrein of both.” 1579
An often-expressed argument for organizing the “Faculty” has been that the UO Senate has proven itself unable to move the Administration in needed directions. That was certainly true under Dave’s Presidency, both because of Dave’s authoritarian inclinations and the lack of a Constitution that defined the manner in which Senate-Presidential disagreements were to be handled. The resulting failure of Shared Governance evoked reactions from Faculty, one of which was to develop a Constitution that protects Faculty input from falling into a Black Hole and the other of which was to Unionize. The former path was predicated on the view that Shared Governance works best when it is cooperative; the latter path was predicated on the view that cooperation was of no interest to the UO Administration.
Meanwhile, the Union was organized and CBA negotiations begun. In parallel, the previously dispirited Senate has worked to get back on its feet and to put the new Constitution to work. That effort was interrupted by Richard’s departure and Bob’s apparent lack of interest. Also, during these short term presidencies, entrenched interests in JH showed little respect for the Senate or the new Constitution. That, of course, further fueled the perceived need for a Union.
At the last Senate Meeting (January 16, 2013), three events indicated that, under Mike’s Presidency, Constitutional Shared Governance will work. (1) The December Senate passed three Resolutions, actions that Dave might have ignored. Mike, however, aware of his Constitutional obligation. responded explicitly to all three of them. (2) Provost Bean explained to the Senate how the Constitution ensures that Presidential response will be forthcoming whenever the Senate takes an action. Jim ‘s contribution was a clear sign that not only is Mike on board with the Constitution but JH-at-large is as well. (3) More substantive actions were taken by the Senate, and more are clearly in the pipe line. The future for Constitutional Shared Governance looks good, EXCEPT —
— the Senate needs a Vice P{resident, who will become next year’s Senate President. Someone (and there ARE many someones) who care about the quality of UO as an educational institution must step forward. The job appears to be time-consuming, so interested parties might link their availability to enhanced support in terms of personnel, expense budget, and/or released time. (I imagine that present and past Senate Presidents would be a good sources of advice.) If the opportunity is seized now, the perceived need for a Union may well fade, and UO can get united on a path to continued improvement instead of locked-in mediocrity.
(This document has been posted also on the UO Faculty Union Forum Site)
I’m not sure it will make the union go away, but I heartily agree that we NEED a vice-presidential candidate (or two or three). Thanks, Frank, for the pointed reminder.
An eloquent post — thank you, Frank — and the plea for a Vice President candidate is appropriately urgent. Candidates need to be full professors, and I believe Frank is correct is asserting that availability can be linked to enhanced support.
No need to be a full professor to be VP or Prez — but to enhance the Senate’s stature, it would be a good idea.
Why is it so hard to get people to serve?
If you like service you can become a Dept head or Associate Dean, and get teaching and research releases, and a semi-permanent salary increase.
In comparison, Senate pres comes with a teaching release but no raise. And it is hardly a good career move for people interested in moving onto the administrative track – look at what’s happened with past presidents.
As Frank says, the new constitution is an improvement, and I think Rob has done a very good job. But it’s still far from clear Gottfredson is going to give up any real power to the Senate. He did accept the motion for reviews of administrators – something the Senate has pushed for almost 20 years. That’s slow going if you are the sort of person who wants to leave a mark.
The word from Hubin is that Gottfredson will push back if the Senate tries to do anything about the athletic budget – something the Senate has been trying to have a voice on since at least 2004.
Gottfredson didn’t like what the Senate Transparency Committee did on public records, so he had Hubin set up his own administrative working group to do an end run on the Senate. He let his ELT stall the IAC data request for months – we still don’t know if we sill get the data, even after the Senate motion passed unanimously.
There is only very minimal staff support – less than $40K a year. Chris Prosser is doing the minutes and web on contract from Texas. Randy Geller is still refusing to let the Senate get outside legal advice, much less pay for it – while he’s spent at least $75K of academic side money on lawyers for the athletic department.
Bottom line, no one should take this job without a written agreement between Gottfredson and the Senate on compensation, resources, legal support, and the scope of action.
A Conversation:
. UO MattersMonday, 21 January, 2013 Why is it so hard to get people to serve? If you like service you can become a Dept head or Associate Dean, and get teaching and research releases, and a semi-permanent salary increase. In comparison, Senate pres comes with a teaching release but no raise.
. FS: Some past Senate Presidents have accepted personal financial compensation. There seems to be no legal obstacle, and it makes sense to negotiate such, since the presidency must take a real bite out of ones academic opportunities.
. UOM: And it is hardly a good career move for people interested in moving onto the administrative track – look at what’s happened with past presidents.
. FS: I doubt whether the Senate WANTS a President interested in moving onto the administrative track.
. UOM: As Frank says, the new constitution is an improvement, and I think Rob has done a very good job. But it’s still far from clear Gottfredson is going to give up any real power to the Senate.
. FS: By State Law, the UO President cannot give power to the Senate. The UO Constitution does not and cannot require him to do so. The Constitution does the only thing it can do, and does it well: it ensures interaction between the President and the Senate and Statutory Faculty. No more Black Holes.
. UOM: He did accept the motion for reviews of administrators – something the Senate has pushed for almost 20 years. That’s slow going if you are the sort of person who wants to leave a mark.
. FS: UOM knows that 20 years is the wrong time-line. Is he trying to obscure the issue? Most of that 20 years is Frohnmayer’s. Mike has moved promptly on this motion.
. UOM: The word from Hubin is that Gottfredson will push back if the Senate tries to do anything about the athletic budget – something the Senate has been trying to have a voice on since at least 2004.
. FS: Hey Dude! Bring your motion to the Senate Floor, and let the Senate decide if it’s an issue it should act on. I’d bet on Senate passage of a sensible motion. The No Black Holes Feature of The Constitution would then ensure a timely Presidential response, and, if the Senate doesn’t buy his response, we’re in for an Assembly. The issue deserves a good public hearing, and this would do it. One may even hope that the resulting News Coverage and Public Response would have some affect.
. UOM: Gottfredson didn’t like what the Senate Transparency Committee did on public records, so he had Hubin set up his own administrative working group to do an end run on the Senate. He let his ELT stall the IAC data request for months – we still don’t know if we sill (sic) get the data, even after the Senate motion passed unanimously.
. FS: Is UOM being fair? It looks to me as though the IAC Rep, in introducing the motion, finally took the only move that is certain to get a straight-forward Presidential response. When did that motion pass? A week ago? Prexy has a Constitutional 60 days to respond to the Senate. We have no reason to doubt that he will respond as required.
. UOM: There is only very minimal staff support – less than $40K a year. Chris Prosser is doing the minutes and web on contract from Texas. Randy Geller is still refusing to let the Senate get outside legal advice, much less pay for it – while he’s spent at least $75K of academic side money on lawyers for the athletic department. Bottom line, no one should take this job without a written agreement between Gottfredson and the Senate on compensation, resources, legal support, and the scope of action.
. FS: This last paragraph is sensible, except for the scope of action part. THAT is defined by Law and the Constitution.