The February 1982 Monthly packet includes the February agenda and appendices and the Faculty Senate minutes and attachments from the meeting held January 1982

Portland State University Faculty Senate

The February 1981 Monthly packet includes the February agenda and appendices and the Faculty Senate minutes and attachments from the meeting held January 1981

PDXScholar (Portland State University)

Portland State UniversityPDXScholarFaculty Senate Monthly Packets University Archives: Faculty Senate2-1-1981Faculty Senate Monthly Packet February 1981Portland State University Faculty SenateLet us know how access to this document benefits you.Follow this and additional works at: http://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/senateminutesThis Minutes is brought to you for free and open access. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Senate Monthly Packets by an authorizedadministrator of PDXScholar. For more information, please contact pdxscholar@pdx.edu.Recommended CitationPortland State University Faculty Senate, "Faculty Senate Monthly Packet February 1981" (1981). Faculty Senate Monthly Packets.Paper 37.http://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/senateminutes/37portland state universityMEMORANDUMTUFROMSenators and Ex-officio Members of the SenateUlrich H. Hardt, Secretary of the FacultyOAT~ January 19, 1981The Senate will hold its regular meeting on February 2, 1981, at 3:00 p.m., in150 Cramer Hall.AgendaA. Roll*B.Approva~ of Minutes of the January 12, 1981, MeetingC. Announcements and Communications trom the Floor1. Report of IFS winter Meeting -- Sugarman2. Update from AOF -- M. Enneking3. MUP Collective Bargaining Preview, including Salary Increases -- MoorD. Question Period1. Question for AdministratorsQuestions for Library Director Pfingsten (submitted by Senate SteeringCommittee) :"What was the nature of the reorganization of the Library?What was the rationale for the changes?What were the procedures used in determining and implementing the changes?"2. Questions from the Floor for the ChairE. Reports from Officers of the Administration and Committees - noneF. Unfinished Business*1. Proposed Constitu~ionalAmendment, Final Reading ~- Advisory CouncilG. New Business - noneH. Adjournment*The following documents are included in this mailing:B - Minutes of the January 12, 1981, meetingFl - Proposed Constitutional Ammendment****Included for Senators and Ex-officio Members onlySenators unable to attend the meeting are asked to pass this material on totheir alternates.Page 12PORTLAND STATE UNIVERSITY))Minutes:Presiding OfficertSecretary:Members Present:Alternates Present:Members Absent:EX-officio MembersPresent:Faculty Senate Meeting, January 12, 1981Marjorie EnnekingUlrich H. HardtAbbott, Adams, Alberty, Bates, Beeson,.Bennett, BentleyBingham, Brooke, Bruseau, Buell, Bunch, Burden, Chavi~ny,Chino, Clark, Crowley, Dart, Dressler, Dunbar, E. Enneking, M.Enneking, Feldesman, Fiasca, Giachetti, Goekjian, Goslin,Grimes, Hales, Heyden, Howard, Jenkins, Johnson, Kirrie,Lehman, Manning, Midson, Moor, Morris, Mueller, L.Nussbaum, R. Nussbaum, Piper, Rad, Scheans, Sugarman,swanson, Tuttle, Youngelson, Wyers.McKittrick for Alexander, J. Daily for M. Daily,Chapman for Dueker, Kasal for Kimbrell, Lutes forWilliams.Breedlove, Burns, Conroy, Diman, Dreyer, Bierman,Hashimoto, Heflin, Muller, Oh, white, Wurm.Blumel, Corn, Erzurumlu, Forbes, Gruber, Hardt, Heath,Hoffman, Howard, Pfingsten, Rauch, Schendel, Todd, Toulan,Trudeau, van't Slot.I )\lAPPROVAL OF THE MINUTESThe minutes of the December 1, 1980, meeting were approved with the followingchange: page 8, line two from the bottom, should read "administrators' and [!;colleagues' salary." Erzurumlu should have been marked present.ANNOUNCEMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE FLOORTufts reported that Winter term pre-registration was higher than last year~BlUmel added that last year's ice storm and the resultant change in fee paymentdeadlines make comparisons difficult. Chavigny brought word from CampusMinistries that they asked faculty to encourage students to vote on thereferendum regarding the problems in El Salvador.QUESTION PERIOD1. Questions for Administrators)a. To the question regarding obtaining faculty approval of degree candidates,Blumel responded that there appears to have been no statutorY,administrat-ive or constitutional requirement to do so. The last time a presidentsought faculty approval was when President Millar called a special meeting,June 7, 1968. Because it was recognized that the vote had only symbolicmeaning, and that some students on the candidacy list were being disquali-fied and others added even while the meeting was being held, few facultyattended. At a faculty meeting on February 12, 1969, Registrar Baumgartnerproposed that "All candidates who have applied for a degree and the-13- I ,))" )b.Registrar believes to be eligible, will be recognized at commencement,although they will not receive degrees. The Commencement Program wouldmake clear that not everyone listed would be graduated. The Registrar ..would have time to make 'accurate check; no early exams or early gradeswould be required from the facu1ty." No faculty objection to theproposal was recorded in the minutes. The practice for many years hasbeen for an evaluation by the Registrar's staff of the record of eachstudent applying for graduation. Those meeting all requirements of thearea of study and of the University" as specified by the Faculty, arecertified by the Registrar on a quarterly degree list sent to theChancellor's Office for formal approval by the state Board of HigherEducation.Regarding the questiono£ faculty participation in administrativereview of administrators above department head and the procedures ofsuch review, B1umel replied that there is a fbrma1 procedure for reviewof administrative officers which calls for input by faculty in almost allcases. Each vice-president has developed under general guidelines aprocedure for evaluation of officers reporting to him or her. To thispoint there has not been a general notification of those people who wereunder review. The Advisory Council and President last spring hadagreed to pUblish in the fall names of officers to be evaluated thisyear, but because of the arrival of a new Vice-President of AcademicAffairs, this was delayed for a few months. Gruber will sOon be readyto pUblish in the Bulletin a list of those being reviewed. R. Nussbaumwartted clarification on how'facu1ty will be involved. B1ume1 said thatin areas outside of the academic area the procedure generally calls forthose selected faculty who have had direct working re1ationshps with theadministrator to give input. Dobson indicated that a long-rangeschedule exists for revieW of administrators in the academic affairs areasubject to change any time. People are aware of their sequence of beingreyiewed approximately every three years. The procedure includes thede'lielopment Of, a list of faculty interviewees, jointly developed by theVice~president and the person being evaluated. Blumel -reported that inthe past it was not generally known who was being reviewed, even thoughdepartment heads had been informed. ApparentlY that channel has not beenadequate, and for that reason the Bulletin will be used for, making announce-ments. Bunch wondered whether the faculty at large could give input forevaluations through some kind of regUlarized procedure. Blumel, said he wasnbt contemplating designing a process soliciting comments generally; rather,he wanted to notify faculty that the evaluation was taking place, and allpersons wishing to comment could go to the Vice-President or President.~ wanted to know specifically how he could know what to do if he wishedto give input. Blumel suggested that the department heads could announceto faculty that the formal review is taking place so that all who wishedcould comment to the Academic Vice-President.REPORTS FROM OFFICERS OF THE ADMINISTRATION AND COMMITTEES1. Heath announced that th~ program formerly known as Project Advance now iscalled Challenge Program, because Syracuse University has a copyright to the) original name. He recalled that the PSU Senate had granted a 3-to-5-year trialperiod for the program; since this is the fifth year, Academic Affairs, in thespring, will bring a recommendation to the Senate regarding the future of the))))-14-Challenge Program. He'introduced Karen Tosi as the coordinator. R. Nussbaum, asked how an already overworked ,PSU faculty could supervise ,the qual~tyof thehigh school,teaching to make sure that'it is the equivalent of psu.' :!'.2!!!.answered that each department has its own ways of working with high schools,but that the contractual agreement calls for at least one contact each term.She cited Rees in Foreign Languages as an example of one who asks to seestudent papers several times each quarter, who looks over exams, and he willeven grade high school papers using university standards to give the teacheran idea howthestudents i peers would be rated in classes at PSU. R~ Nussbaumwondered if PSU exams are ever sent to the high schools. ~osireplied in theaffirmative and added that PSU is striving to get genuine equivalents of thecourses taught at the University. Johnson wanted to know approximately whatpay was involved for the supervisor and whether that was an incentive and fairremuneration. Tosi explained that the agreement allows $150 for the first termand $50 for each succeedinc;J one, provided no changes in staffing occurred. Forthat money some districts, e.g., Portland Public Schools, really wanted theirmoney's worth; they want feedback on what the PSU coordinators are doing andhave had some stimulating joint meetings with instructors reviewing recentresearch. Heath emphasized that participatioh is not iinpt>sed' on PSu'facui.ty1it is 'a 'totally voluntary decisiort. Some faculty have even wanted to donatetheir services to this program. Fiasca said that he had always regarded thisprogram as a' PSU recruiting mechanism of high quality, highly motivated studentsand wondered how many students have eventually chosen PSU for their college.Tosi countered that neither the program here nor at Syracuse was designed pri-~ly as a recruiting tool. It has helped high school students to get a realis-tic idea of ,what college work is all about. In any case, this program is too newtomak'e evaluations of its impact; we will have to wait till 19a,2 for that. 'BUell raised the question of transfer credit. Heath said there were no problemsother than with a handful' of colleges which do not accept any transfers.Syracuse reports that 95% of their 4,000 students have'had Project Advance creditsaccepted. 'He also reported' that the problem with cOmnlunity colleges was settlednow through the efforts of the State Board of Education which controls both highschools and community colleges. After JUly 1, 1981, high schools wanting tobecome part of this program must first approach the community college in theirarea to see if the college will service them. 1£ the, college will, the highschool technically does not have the option to come to PSU.2. Neland, chairperson of the Ad ,h()~F~~ulty Club Committee, summarized thegroup's report of the feasibility of ,est~blishing a 'club. He emphasized thatbrily the feasibility and not the format of such an organization was studied.The President has approved to reserve the George Porter House, now occupied bySocial Work, as a pOssible facility for the club. Present plans call for thebuilding to be vacated in 1983 with the completion of Phase II of the ProfessionalSchools Building, but the present, financial situation of the state may delaymatters. Nelandsuggested that if the majority oftha faculty wanted a FacUltyClub, pressure could be exercised to get things done earlier. Bunch showed aseries of slides that highlighted the merits of the J1lorter House and showed thecare of maintenance, especially of the woodwork. A kitchen could be added, andadding a sprinkler system (ca. $10,000 ~ $15,000) would make the third flooroccupyable -- possibly for sleeping rooms. He reported that membership infaculty clubs at other universities ranged from 5% to 60% and annual fees from$100 to $250. Bunch emphasized that a facility like this would help to integratethe faCUlty.i )II-15-MSP Bunch/Kirrie "~he PSU Faculty Senate, upon hearing and discussing thereport of the Ad hoc Faculty Club Committee, expresses its enthusiasticsuppOrt of efforts to realize a PSU Faculty Club. 'Furthermore, it expressesits pleasure at the information that various faculty members and the psuWomen's Association have offered to cooperate toward that end."Youngelson wanted to know' if there is a committee set up to carryon the work.M.Enneking replied that it was not appropriate to appoint a committee becausethis will have to be a separate incorporated group. A group will have to formon its own, independent of faculty governance ,structure, but she was sure thatthe Senate Steering Committee, the Advisory Council, and the Ad hoc Committeewould be willing to informally work to support such an effort.NEW BUSINESS1. The constitutional amendment providing for staggered senate terms from givendivisions was presented by the Senate Steering Committee for first reading. MSP.Tohnson/L., Nussbaum, "that the proposed amendment be accepted and sent to' theAdyisory Council for review.'" , ,2. Vice President Todd responded to the resolution proposed by the SenateSteering Committee,regarding notification of faculty when changes in health plancoverage occur. He made it clear that it is the Oregon State Employees BenefitBoard's responsibility to advise all faculty of changes in insurance coverage.In the case of the important Kaiser plan changes, the Personnel Office sent allmaterials directly to facUlty rather than reprinting or summarizing them in theBulletin~ Todd pointed out that last yeatalone the Bulletin carried fifteenannouncements of changes, and he said ,that the Personnel Office will continue todo that. R.Nussbaumagreedwith Todd that the Kaiser tabloid,was not as clearas, it might have been and suggested that the Bulletin might still be used as avehicle tohighli<jht changes.there being no motion regardirigthe resolution, the meeting ,was adjourned at4:24 p.m., :.'TO:FROM:RE:Faculty S~nateAdvisory CbuncilConstitutional AmendmentJanuary 22, 1981))i.In order to provide continuity of Senate membership from a given division, the followingconstitutional amendment for staggered terms is .offered:Article V. SenateSection 2~ Election of the Senate.CURRENT WORDING4) Terms and Limits of Membership. Senate members shall be chosen for three-yearterms. These terms shall be so arranged that approximately one-third of the Senateshall be elected each year. The secretary of the Faculty shall inform each divisionas to the number of vClcanc.ies and length of term of each position to be elected each_year.No members shall be eligible for re-election until one year has elapsed followinghis or her term of office or resignation. No person shall be eligibie to representmore than one division.PROPOSED WORDING4) Terms.and Limits of Membership. Senate members shall be chosen for three-yearterms except when' (1) senators are being elected to represent a newly-createddivision, or (2) it is necessary to arrange terms so that approximately one-thirdof a division's senators shall be elected each year. In these two cases, facultymembers in the said divisions receiving the largest nUmber of votes will be electedto three-year terms, and those with the next highest numbers of votes will beelected ~o two- and one-year terms as necessary to provide that approximatelyoqe-thirdof the Semite. shall be elected each year. The Secretary of the Facultyshall inform· each division as to the number of vacancies and length of term of e~chposition tob,e elected each.year.No member shall be eligible for re-election until one year has elapsed followinghis br her term bf of£~ce or resignation. No person shall be eligible to representmore than one division. .Rationale:A review by division of the' Senate term expirations over the last five years illustratesthe problem of turn-over and provides the rationale for the proposed constitutionalamendment.1979 1980 1981 1982 '1983Administration 4 2 1 4 0Arts and Letters 7 5 1 7 6Business Administration, 1 3 2 1 3DCE 0 0 3 0 0Education 4 0 1 5 0HPE 2 1 0 2 1Library 2 2 ·0 2 1Science 10 0 3 9 0Social Science 3 5 1 5 5Social Work 1 0 2 1 0Urban Affairs 0 2 0 0 2

Faculty Senate Monthly Packet February 1981

Portland State UniversityPDXScholarFaculty Senate Monthly Packets University Archives: Faculty Senate2-1-1982Faculty Senate Monthly Packet February 1982Portland State University Faculty SenateLet us know how access to this document benefits you.Follow this and additional works at: http://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/senateminutesThis Minutes is brought to you for free and open access. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Senate Monthly Packets by an authorizedadministrator of PDXScholar. For more information, please contact pdxscholar@pdx.edu.Recommended CitationPortland State University Faculty Senate, "Faculty Senate Monthly Packet February 1982" (1982). Faculty Senate Monthly Packets.Paper 172.http://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/senateminutes/17218, 1982portland state university~~~M EM 0 RAN ld~\G';M':'~':>\l .'....: '''~., \,.J " , r~~' ..\ ,. ; J 1., 5 i98Z '.' t/Senators and Ex-officio Members of the sen'at~'l'\," U0;~);i\~~'ary.. -:"'":\ .._ .. _ ...... _~1'....Ulrich H. Hardt, Secretary of the Faculty" " .The Faculty Senate will hold its regular meeting on February 1, 1982, at 3:00p.m. in 150 Cramer HallFROMTOI )',, \~ q 34- ~,14 \'1.",_....,...-:::AgendaA. Roll*B. Approval of the Minutes of the January 11, 1982, MeetingC. Announcements and Communications from the FloorD. Question Period1. Questions for AdministratorsQuestion to President Blumel, submitted by the Steering Committee:"What are the latest developments in the Legislature regardingHigher Education?"E. Reports from the Officers of Administration and Committees1. State of winter term registration--TuftsF. Unfinished Business*1. Constitutional Amendment, Article III, Section 4, FinalReading--BeesonH. Adjournment*The following documents are included with this ma~lingB Minutes of the January 11, 1982, Senate MeetlngF1 Constitutional Amendment, Article III, Section 4****Included for Senators and Ex-Officio Members onlyMi nutes :Presiding Officer:Secretary:Members Present:PORTLAND STATE UNIVERSITYFaculty Senate Meeting, January 11, 1982Mary CumpstonUlrich H. HardtAbbott, Alexander, Bates, Beeson, Bennett, Bingham, Bjork,Breedlove, Brenner, Brooke, Bruseau, Buell, Bunch, Burden,Chapman, Chino, Cumpston, Daily, Dart, Dressler, Dueker,Dunbar, Enneking, Erdman, Goekjian, Goslin, Grimes, Hales,Heflin, Heneghan, Heyden, Holloway, Jackson, Jenkins,Karant-Nunn, Kimball, Kimbrell, Kirrie, Lehman, Limbaugh,McMahon, Midson, Moor, Muller, Nussbaum, L., Nussbaum, R.,Pinamonti, Patton, Peterson, Rad, Savery, Scheans, Shimada,Simpson, Sonnen, Swanson, Tuttle, Waldroff, Waller, WhiteAlternates Present: Cogan for Conroy, Lovell for Youngelson, Lutes for WilliamsMembers Absent:Ex-officio MembersPresent:Beattie, Diman, Feldesman, OhBarta, Blumel, Corn, Dobson, Erzurumlu, Forbes, Gruber,Hardt, Hoffmann, Howard, Leu, Morris, Nicholas, Parker,Paudler, Pfingsten, Rauch, Ross, Todd, Toulan, Trudeau, VantSlotAPPROVAL OF THE MINUTESThe minutes of the December 7 and 14 Senate meetings were approved ascirculated. Waller was noted present for December 7.ANNOUNCEMENTBrenner reported that AOF had concentrated its efforts along the following lines:Flrst, to reduce the magnitude of the budget cuts from the Governor's proposed10% to a maximum of 5%. Lobbyist Davis has chosen this as the highest priurity;his effort is not to go beyond the first 5% package. Second, there is a strongfeeling among AOF to put salary reduction down to the third or fourth step.QUESTION PERIOD1. Questions for Administrators .a. Vice President Gruber up-dated the early/phased retlrement requestsreceived by his office as of December 31, 1981. He indicated that someadministrators were among the requests.Faculty Senate Minutes -29- January 11, 19824Not Approved/WithdrawnFull Phase (0.33/yr)yr55)---~.-_...._-------1 (6)-----1 ( 3)1 (8)1 (4 )--f-.-.----_._-----51 (3)1 (3)1 (3)1 (7)1 (3)416 - 19821 (3) 11 (8)1 (6)-~-il-~T-~t2 (3)_n_~~cc~ted~ Pend i ngsed (0.33/yr Full Phased(0.33/I or 1e-------1 (2) r3 (3)-_._,---- -_.__-1 _1 (2)1 (3)109 - 19821 - 1983ge/ScrlOol Approved a>-F~lrp-hd-_._--I& Letters 3 l--~----_._-~-+---ess 2eering--tion-------1 Science 3_._-- 1...--ce 1--f--_.t Affairs 1--_.--f-.---StudenSc i en---Soc i at:duc aEng inBusinArtsCo 11 eb. Vant Slot reported on what his office had done to present PSU's casebefore the Legislature. Legislators have been encouraged to cast voteswhich strengthen the University; the strategy has been to emphasize PSU'simportance in the metropolitan area and in the state and to show whatimpacts program reductions are having on the communities affected. Directcommunication has been initiated with the key players, and supportiveinformation is provided them. Since early November there has also been aseries of meetings with the PSU Foundation and Alumni Council. Excellentsupport has come from them. They in turn have arranged breakfast andluncheon meetings with Legislators, the Governor, and the State Board.President Blumel has been very active and effective in all of this; inaddition, he recently met with the editorial boards of the Oregonian andOre~on Journal and has spoken to ?ther governmental and civic organizations,lnc udlng the Portland City Councll. Vant Slot also reported that a state-widealumni network is now in place and that the network is keeping the Legislatorwell informed about the significant position of PSU.Faculty Senate Minutes -30- January 11, 1982Special guest Chuck Clemans, PSU alulllnus, former lobbyist andSuperintendent of Oregon City Schools, also spoke about the effectivenessof alUl~ni e~fort5. ~arder times have caused more people to get behindthe Unlverslty. leglslators need to hear from their constituents thatrevenue raising meaSUt'es will be supported by the voter'>, and he ut'lJedthat brief personal contacts be made with Legislators and letters be senL Luthem. Grimes asked if current students have been organized. Blumelresponded that Pamela Reamer, Vanguard Editor, has been the key organizerand has been very effective in getting the message out. Reamer addedthat students have been very interested in assisting, and she urgedprofessors to talk about the seriousness of the situation to theirstudents in class. Barta, ASPSU President, said his office had compileda file of students who want to call Legislators.UNFINISHED BUSINESS1. West presented a revised motion for the formation of a faculty advisoryCommTtfee on Instructional Media, to be established by administrative action.Grimes/R. Nussbaum put the motion and the accompanying committee charge on thefloor. Dunbar asked about the size of the committee. West replied that theGovernance Guide contained a general comment about that~d Cumptson added thatin general small-sized committees are preferred.Kimbrell wanted to know how this would affect AV and its operating procedure.Would this committee be advisory or supplementary? Midson responded that thecommittee will determine its own specific role, but he saw three importantfunctions. I} It would give guidance to AV about needed changes and options; noformal process for faculty input exists now. 2) The committee would take anadvocate role and be more forceful than staff members in matters like budgetallocations. 3) The committee could bring about rationalization of the mediaservices offered across the campus. At the present time these are oftenconfusing and wasteful; e.g., six units on campus offer photographic services.The motion was passed unanimously.2. The Advisory Council presented a constitutional amendment of Article VI,Sections 1 and 3, for final reading. The amendment was accepted after Scheansand Kirrie were instructed to make editorial revisions in Section 3. (Therevised amendment appears at the end of today's minutes).NEW BUSINESSBeeson, speaking for the Advisory Council, presented a proposed constitutionalamendment giving the Council's interpretation,of the length of terms o!Department Heads (Article III, Section 4). Slnce each department.has ltS own~uidelines, a diversity exists across campus, and he.felt.that thlSlnterpretation best recognizes and deals with that dlverslty.~ and Corn argued that the proposed amendment still did n?t .clari~y thelSsue, stirr-giving authority to both dep?rtm~nts.and t~e admlnlstratl~n,thus being self-contradictory. The Constltutlon In Artlcle III under FacultyPowers and Authority" gives the faculty the power to make the sUbstantiv~decisions regarding selection of Department Heads Bunch argued, and he vlewed theFaculty Senate Minutes -31 January 11, 1982I'c'le uf the administration as a procedw'al one, assuring that the faculty'sdecisions are consistent with the Constitution and Administrative Rules. Bates,on the other hand, stated that the amendment clarified a point which is not nowclear, namely that departments determine whether a head can be re-elected. Hefavored adoption of the amendment and suggested that the Senate at another timetackle the question of what is substantive and what is procedural.ADJOURNMENTThe meeting was adjourned at 4:12 p.m.REVISED CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT(Adopted January 11, 1982Article VI, SECTION 3 - VacanciesSUBST lTUTE2. Any vacancy OcculTing on the Advisory coulntcil TShhalsl be tfil1edht~rloughappointment by the Secretary of the Facu y: e .ecre.ary sa.designate that nominee who was not elected 1n the 1mmedlate past Adv1soryCouncil election but who had the greatest number of votes of those notelected. An interim appointee sh~ll complete the regular term ofoffice. An interim appointee hav1ng ~erved one year or less shall beeligible for election at the end of h1S or her term.CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT(Final Reading)At the direction of the Faculty Senate (12-14-81), the Advisory Councilproposes the following amendment to the Constitution:A. Article III. Faculty Powers and Authority.Section 4. Faculty Authority in the Selection of Department HeadsParagraph 4SUBSTITUTE "The Department Head shall serve a stated term of three (3) years.Eligibility for re-election or re-appointment shall be determined bydepartment a1 procedures. IIIN PLACE OF "The Department Head shall serve a stated term of three (3) yearsbut without prejudice to re-election or re-appointment. IIB. RATIONALEGiven the diverse nature of University departments, it is unreasonable toexpect that a single rule fixing the eligibility of a Department Head tore-election would be suitable for all departments. This is why a number ofexisting departmental procedures and practices have modified the currentconstitutional statement under discussion. The departments involved have, infact, simply carried out their responsibility for determining the method ofselection for their Head. The fact that the University administration mustaccept or reject such procedures as well as those nominated via those procedures~eem~ safeguard enough against administrative chaos.

Faculty Senate Monthly Packet February 1982

http://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1036&context=senateminutes

Faculty Senate Monthly Packet February 1982

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

PDXScholar (Portland State University)

PDXScholar (Portland State University)