Faculty Senate Meeting
3:30 Tuesday, November 23, 1999
Columbia Room, Werner University Center

1.0  Call to Order

2.0  Call of the Roll:  Stephanie Tunison, Linda Keller, Meredith
Brodsky, Leo Rasca-Hidalgo, Martin Rodriquez-Perez, Tina Fuchs,
and Obie Garza were absent.  Substitution:  Susan Daniel
substituted for Carol Harding.  A large contingent of guests were
present, including faculty, administrators, and a student reporter.

3.0  Corrections to minutes from the previous senate meeting:
Janeanne Rockwell-Kincanon put forth the correction/addition of her
election to the Honor Code Committee at the last meeting.  With
this correction, the previous minutes were approved.

Joel put forth that Item 8.1-8.3 (New Business:  Budget
Presentations and Question/Answer Discussion) be moved to the
first order of business.  This motion was approved.

(Sarah's Insert:  I have summarized and condensed 8.1-3 as much
as possible, owing to the fact that this portion of the meeting lasted
about two hours.  Substantial reports/paperwork was distributed;
please review and consult this information as I will not go into
specific details in the minutes.  Only a partial tape recording,
through the ninety-minute point is available, covering nearly all of
this section).

8.1:  Budget Presentation - Provost Minahan, with Sherry Perry
Provost Minahan stressed that he believes a budget presentation
must become a quarterly component of Senate Meetings given the
now tuition-driven funding model.  He defined that our budget
consists of two funding sources (1)  Fees/tuition, now kept 100%
on campus and (2) State-appropriated additions that are program-
specific in amount.  He next went on to acknowledge that faculty
are severely underpaid, summarizing findings by the AAUP
regarding comparison institute salaries.  He noted that Western's
excellent fringe benefits should be considered alongside salaries.

He then reported that, in contrast with many perceptions, there
was not adequate budget to fulfill salary increases beyond the
Chancellor Office-defined adjustments (4% overall, with yearly
increments until 2001).  He explained, using distributed budget
tables, that, while freshman enrollment exceeded expectations,
upper division and masters level enrollment failed to meet
expectations.  He did stress that retention was up significantly
between the freshman and sophomore level, however.  The net
effect was that the university would have to return 1.5 million (of
an approximately 30 million pre-allocation by the state) by the end
of the year based on estimates.  He emphasized that raising
salaries is of utmost importance and, to best deal with faculty
expectations/bargaining, that a search/hiring freeze for new faculty
hires will take effect to free up monies for this process.  Only direct
replacement of retirees or special hires will occur.  He also
emphasized that classified salaries were now decoupled from
faculty salaries and that this recent separation should
assist with faculty negotiations.

Sherry Perry went through distributed budget reports carefully,
corroborating specific points made by the Provost.

8.2:  Budget Presentation -  Ed Dover

Ed Dover described the basic tuition/state model as the visible
budget (i.e. the 30 million outlined in the Provost's presentation)
and then suggested that we also consider revenue that was not
included in this budget, including distance education, unrestricted
gifts, service funds, auxiliary enterprise, and miscellaneous
gifts/grants/contracts.  Revenue and budget combined, he stated,
should total over 67 million dollars - adequate for salary increases
beyond the Chancellor's Office-approved increase.  A summary of
this budget/revenue was distributed.  He suggested that monies for
salary be re-appropriated from funds within this revenue as many
were defined in terms of faculty development and advancement.

He went on to directly compare several named faculty and
administrators in terms of salary.  Finally, he distributed a
comparison of different potential faculty salaries over the next two
years based on either (a)  the WOU Management Plan/Offer;  or (b)
 basic Social Security/cost of living adjustments, pointing out that
they are essentially equal.

8.3  Budget Presentation Question/Answer Discussion

Some highlights of the major issues:

(1)  Much discussion throughout this section went into the Higher
Education Board's nearly three-year-old stated commitment to
raising Oregon faculty salaries above the 50th percentile
(nationwide).  Dr. Youngblood said that she has repeatedly raised
this issue with the Board with no movement/answers.  In response
to follow-up questions about how other campuses are dealing with
salaries, she said that other campuses had or were in the process
of negotiating only (approximately) 2-5% budget increases.

(2)  Related to point (1), significant questions were raised regarding
the legislature-approved additional 100 million dollars for higher
education (namely:  why was only 11 million of this amount
allocated for salaries given the Board's apparent commitment to
this issue and where is the rest of the money going?).  Reasons for
the 11 million allotment were not clear and questions about the
latter point yielded limited hard information;  Provost Minahan said
at least 15 million was reserved to covering tuition freeze
expenses.  Sherry Perry also pointed out where our allotment of
this sum is on the provided budget sheets.

(3)  Significant discussion also went into the question of who
"defines" (or approves) salaries.  While it was stated that the
Chancellor's Office must approve salaries, it was suggested that,
legally, Western could, in fact, argue for autonomy (and, thus,
substantial salary increases).

(4)  The question of whether an actual budget expenditure report
was available for review was raised.  Sherry Perry said that all
previous years' reports were available in the library.  The current
report has been made available to union leaders/bargaining team
members.

(5)  It was also stressed that some of the "revenue" sources noted
by Ed Dover were inaccessible to appropriation for salaries.  The
Auxiliary monies, for example, are student activity fee generated,
to be used only for student activity-associated activities.  Gray
areas, however, include what constitutes "faculty development" and
"administrative" salaries that pertain to faculty with partial
administrative duties.

(6)  The question of why we were seemingly not "seeing" that
anticipated extra revenue (i.e. the money that used to get sent
back to the legislature to assist other campuses) was raised.
Simply, it's too early to see that progress after only eight weeks of
the new model.

(7)  The issue of comparing a twelve-month salary (i.e. generally
administrative) to a nine-month salary (i.e.generally faculty) was
also raised because it appeared as though faculty salaries, when
"expanded" to twelve months, were often similar to a twelve month
salaries.  Several faculty felt that professors are expected to be
productive and are evaluated on the basis of development that
occurs twelve months of the year and that any such comparisons
were inappropriate.

During the above discussion, there were two motions to extend the
meeting.  Both were approved.  Finally, it was moved and approved
that we move on to old business, extending this final segment of
the meeting another twenty minutes.

4.0  Reports of the Presidents
4.1 Senate President

Joel summarized events at the recent Executive Committee
Meeting, including the approval of 4.11 (PE 461).  He reminded
senators that the next official meeting was January 11, although an
emergency meeting could be called by a minimum of 16 senators.
He previewed a key issue at the next meeting regarding PEBB
options as outlined in a recent OSU Faculty Senate letter.  He will
be distributing copies of this letter to senators shortly.

4.2  President of Western Oregon University

Dr. Youngblood reported the passing of the new Anthropology
Degree;  it will now move in the mandatory 45-day wait period for
review/comment by private institutes.

4.3  Student Body President:  Obie Garza was absent

5.0-6.7  There were no reports by IFS or any Faculty Senate Sub-
Committees.

7.0  Consideration of Old Business

7.1  IFS Senator Election

Nominees Bob Turner and Dovie Trevino were put forth for
consideration of a four-year term, replacing Marion Schrock during
his final year and continuing for the duration of the regularly three-
year term. Bob Turner was elected.

7.2  Final Honor Code Committee Members

Humanities still needs to provide a member.  Despite this, it was
requested that the committee meet, elect a chair, and begin
discussions.

7.3  Enrollment Committee

Education will provide a member shortly.  Joel will be verifying that
Mark Henkels intends to represent Liberal Arts and Sciences.

7.4  Faculty Senate Diversity Statement

Two issues were discussed:  First, questions about the
statement's assertion that public documentation of
crimes/violations must be encouraged on campus was brought up
as a potential violation of the constitutional rights/civil privacy rights
of violators.  It was suggested that the policy should be applied
only as a general anonymous report in the newspaper (for
example).  Second, questions about the publication format of the
faculty statement were entertained.  It was decided to place
the statement in the WOU newspaper as a full page.  The
statement was approved.

The meeting was adjourned (at nearly 6 p.m., I will add).