University professors, administrators and student representatives converged Wednesday for the monthly University Senate meeting. But something was amiss; in a rare criticism of University administrators, senators passed a resolution condemning the process that sited the University’s new sports arena. The bill asserted that:
“Be It Resolved that, the University of Oregon University Senate
Hereby expresses its strong opposition to the siting process for the arena and associated facilities that has taken place to date, and
Hereby urges and expects the University administration to submit its proposal to the Campus Planning Committee for review, and to follow other established campus planning procedures for the siting of the arena and associated facilities.”
Biology Professor and former Senate President Nathan Tublitz echoed the resolution’s concerns:
“When one group decides that they can circumvent processes, it alienates the entire University community.”
While Tublitz’s accusations are strongly worded, and while the resolution wields no actual policy-making power, the Senate’s pithy message is nonetheless a most important one.
The site selection process violated the University’s Policy Statement 7.000, titled “Facility Improvements Financed from Donations”: After the relevant administrator approves plans for donated funds, he or she must pass plans to the appropriate vice president, who will “forward (the plan) to the Campus Planning Committee for analysis and recommendation in accordance with established procedures the statement of need, project description, and budget.”
The Emerald Editorial Board strongly approves of the selection itself: the location is easily accessible, the siting costs should be less than a quarter of the cost of building the arena on land not currently owned by the University and the arena will bring along with it (in according with city code) badly needed expanded parking. Faculty members said they were not necessarily opposed to the site, either. And while administrators did consult the committee “on, I think, two occasions,” University Vice President for Administration Dan Williams said, the selection process largely violated the University’s longtime and critically important tradition of shared governance.
In the larger scheme of things, it’s fortunate that the arena siting issue, rather than a more controversial one, prompted the discussion about shared governance. The University decision was a logistically sound one, and the Campus Planning Committee would likely agree with it, anyway.
Better yet, the administration has already resolved to better integrate the Campus Planning Committee, and thus, by representation, an appreciable fraction of campus voices.
“What the president is trying to do is include the Campus Planning Committee from this point forward,” Williams said.
And any plans for even tighter shared governance is good news for everyone in the campus community.