DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT (03mar5mins)





Present:          Bryant, DiMagno, Fuller, Logan-Peters, Miller, Peterson, Sawyer, Spann, Whitt, Wolf, Wunder


Absent:           King, Siekman


Date:               Wednesday, March 5, 2003


Location:        Academic Senate Office, 420 University Terrace


1.0       Call to Order

            Miller called the meeting to order at 3:10 p.m.


2.0       Announcements

2.1       Revenue Committee Hearing

Miller reported that the State Revenue Committee Hearing would be held on Thursday, March 6th.  He recommended that members of the committee should attend the meeting if possible.


2.2       Appropriations Committee Hearing

Miller announced that the State Appropriations Committee would be meeting on Monday, March 10th at 3:00 to hear the University’s budget case.  He suggested that faculty members should try to attend this meeting.


3.0       Faculty Forums

The committee agreed that a list of the issues raised at the faculty forum meetings held on February 25th and 26th should be sent to members of the Senate.


4.0              Follow up On March 4th Academic Senate Meeting

Peterson stated that the administration seems bound and determined to cut tenured faculty members and academic programs.  He stated that there is the sense that administrators feel that there are too many units and that the way to get rid of them is through vertical cuts.  He pointed out that any alternative budget cutting proposals that have been suggested have been taken off the table.  He stated that the Senate needs to continue making resolutions like those adopted at the Senate meeting.  He recommended resolutions could be made on the use of priority funds and horizontal versus vertical cuts.  He pointed out that vertical cuts may be more devastating to the university than horizontal cuts.  Horizontal cuts can be reversed once the budget situation improves, which it surely will, while vertical cuts are generally impossible to reverse once they are made, even when a better budgetary climate returns. 


Sawyer stated that it appears that the members of the Board of Regents do not feel that people at the university can accurately judge quality and therefore vertical cuts would be more effective.  Whitt noted that quality is not being considered in the cutting of academic programs.  Fuller stated that the cuts appear to be politically based.  Logan-Peters questioned the criteria being used to make the cuts. 


The Committee agreed a response to budget cuts should be drafted.  It should be noted that the response if from the Executive Committee.


Miller stated that the Board of Regents seems locked into the idea of vertical cuts.  Bryant pointed out that a budget is a plan and through it an organization reveals its values.  He noted that if a budget includes the firing of tenured faculty members, then tenure is being abandoned by the institution--and the Senate and faculty cannot support that. 


Spann stated that presenting a plan with alternatives would be a good idea.  He stated that he has heard that deans have presented budget cuts to the administration that have been turned down because they are not vertical cuts and do not eliminate programs.  Logan-Peters stated that it appears that the university is using the budget cutting process to change the structure of the university.   She noted that faculty support of the Chancellor is beginning to wane.  She pointed out that making structural changes in the university would occur more easily with faculty support.  Miller stated that he would arrange to meet with the Chancellor to discuss these concerns.


The committee agreed that a press conference should be held on March 12th at 10:00 to present an alternative plan to the budget cuts.


5.0       Unfinished Business

            5.1       Committee to Review ES/IS Courses

The committee discussed possible faculty members who would be good candidates to serve on a committee to review the ES/IS courses.  DiMagno stated that he would draft a charge for this committee.


            5.2       Student Evaluations Included in Promotion and Tenure Files

Spann distributed copies of a memo sent by the SVCAA with instructions on the kind of student evaluations that are to be included in promotion and tenure files.  DiMagno asked what is to be done in departments that do not use numerical forms for evaluation.  Bryant stated that this should be protested.  He pointed out that the SVCAA is usurpring the faculty’s right in the promotion and tenure process.  DiMagno stated that if numerical data like these are being required, then the applicant should have access to the departmental data.  The committee agreed to put this on the agenda when it meets with the SVCAA.



5.3       Firing of Tenured Faculty at Oregon State University in 1992

Logan-Peters stated that she has located an article dealing with the firing of tenured faculty at Oregon State University.  She noted that the article indicates that departments were consolidated, professional schools were merged or abolished, and faculty members were moved with tenure to other departments.  Griffin stated that she would distribute copies of the article to the committee.


6.0       New Business

            6.1       Nominations for President Elect and Executive Committee

Miller announced that anyone interested in running for President Elect or the Executive Committee should contact President Elect Wunder.  The committee suggested names of possible executive committee nominees. 


            6.2       Academic Senate Award for Service

Bryant suggested that the Academic Senate should establish an award for service by a faculty member.  He pointed out that this should be an award decided solely by faculty members, not administrators.  Wunder stated that it could be called the Academic Senate President’s Service Award.  Bryant suggested that the award could be monetary.  Griffin stated that she would check to see if the Senate’s foundation fund could be used for this purpose. 


6.3       Survey on Administration

Bryant suggested that a graduate student could be hired to develop a simple survey for faculty members to fill out on administrators in their colleges.  He noted that anonymous surveys would be accepted.  The committee agreed to discuss the issue further.


The meeting was adjourned at 5:17 pm.  The next meeting of the Executive Committee will be on Wednesday, March 12th at 3:00 pm.  The meeting will be held in the Academic Senate Office, 420 University Terrace.  The minutes are respectfully submitted by Karen Griffin, Coordinator.